|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| June 2011 |
|
|
Conviction quashed and retrial ordered where PF3 was admitted without complying with s240(3) and medical author was not summoned.
* Criminal law – Rape – Requirement to prove penetration under section 130(4) of the Penal Code – Corroboration by medical evidence (PF3).
* Criminal procedure – Admissibility of medical report (PF3) – Compliance with section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – right of accused to have report’s author summoned for cross-examination.
* Evidence – Child complainant – failure of voir dire – when medical author becomes necessary witness.
* Appellate jurisdiction – Revisional powers under section 4(2) – retrial ordered where trial was fundamentally defective and miscarriage of justice resulted.
|
30 June 2011 |
|
Appeal dismissed: daylight identification by known witnesses and common intention affirmed convictions for murder.
* Criminal law – visual identification – reliability where incident in broad daylight, witnesses knew accused by name, close range and sufficient time; * Criminal procedure – delay in reporting identification – unexplained delay may affect credibility but next‑day report was adequate; * Evidence – descriptive particulars not always necessary where witnesses know accused; * Criminal liability – common intention in group attack renders all participants guilty of murder.
|
30 June 2011 |
|
Failure to address provocation and fight context warranted quashing a murder conviction and substituting manslaughter.
Criminal law – Murder v. manslaughter – Provocation – duty to address assessors – objective test whether ordinary person would have been provoked – deaths in fights attract manslaughter not murder.
|
30 June 2011 |
|
A criminal appeal is incompetent and struck out if the notice of appeal fails mandatory Rule 61(2) requirements.
* Criminal appeals – competence – notice of appeal – mandatory compliance with Rule 61(2) – requirement to state nature and particulars of conviction/sentence/order being appealed.
* Notice invalidity – inconsistent particulars or reference to non-existent decision renders appeal incompetent.
* Preliminary objection – Court will sustain objections based on Rule 61(2) non-compliance and strike out appeal.
|
30 June 2011 |
|
Estoppel barred a late notice objection; identification and recovery evidence were insufficient to convict the applicant.
Criminal procedure – Notice of Appeal – competence of appeal; Evidence Act s.123 – estoppel against late preliminary objection; Identification evidence – requirements for watertight identification; Recovered property – connection between recovered items in unclaimed bag and accused; Conviction for robbery with violence – adequacy of proof.
|
30 June 2011 |
|
Failure to state the nature of the decision appealed renders a notice of appeal incurably defective and the appeal incompetent.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – Notice of appeal – Requirement under Rule 61(2) to state nature of conviction/sentence/order/finding of the High Court – Non‑compliance renders notice incurably defective and appeal incompetent – Appeal struck out; liberty to refile subject to limitation.
|
30 June 2011 |
|
Conviction based solely on a single uncorroborated witness with unexplained evidential gaps is unsafe; appeal allowed.
Criminal law – murder – reliance on single witness – necessity of special caution and scrutiny – failure to call available witnesses and forensic investigation undermines prosecution – conviction unsafe where evidence not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
|
30 June 2011 |
|
Rape conviction upheld: victim’s credible testimony and committee admission established guilt; consent immaterial due to victim’s age.
* Criminal law – Rape – Proof of penetration – Complainant’s testimony alone may suffice to establish penetration (s.130(4)(a)).; * Evidence – Corroboration – Admission recorded in school committee minutes corroborating complainant’s account.; * Evidence – Cautioned statement – Wrongly admitted but not decisive where other evidence suffices.; * Criminal law – Consent immaterial where complainant is underage (s.130(2)(e)).; * Appellate review – Concurrent findings of fact will not be disturbed absent misapprehension or misdirection.
|
30 June 2011 |
|
Admissibility of PF3 and sufficiency of unsworn child and family testimony upheld rape conviction; sodomy count quashed.
Criminal law – sexual offences – admissibility of PF3 under s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act; unsworn child evidence and voir dire (s.127(2) Evidence Act); corroboration requirement for unnatural offence; competence and credibility of family witnesses; age determination under Children and Young Persons Act; appellate interference with sentence and mandatory corporal punishment and compensation.
|
30 June 2011 |
|
|
30 June 2011 |
|
Court granted stay of execution, dismissing procedural objection and finding applicants would suffer irreparable hardship.
Civil procedure — Stay of execution pending appeal — Rule 11(2)(d): good cause, irreparable/substantial loss, balance of convenience; Court's discretion to relieve non-compliance with procedural timelines (Rule 106(1), Rule 34, Rule 4(2)(b)).
|
30 June 2011 |
|
A Principal Resident Magistrate (Extended Jurisdiction) lacks authority to determine High Court s.361(2) enlargement applications; such orders are quashed.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to lodge High Court appeal under s.361(2) Criminal Procedure Act – jurisdictional limits of a Principal Resident Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction under s.45 Magistrates' Courts Act – proceedings and orders made without jurisdiction are void – revision under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
|
29 June 2011 |
|
|
29 June 2011 |
|
The appellants' appeal dismissed: reliable identification, admissions and recovered property proved armed robbery.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – identification of accused – visual identification under lamp light and familiarity; applying Waziri Amani guidelines; * Criminal law – Recent possession – recovery of stolen property from accused’s homes and failure to account; * Criminal procedure – Search without warrant – s.42(3) Criminal Procedure Act and voluntary conduct leading to recovery; * Evidence – voluntariness and admissibility of cautioned statements; * Appellate review – second appeal standard and interference with concurrent findings of fact.
|
29 June 2011 |
|
Court quashed robbery conviction due to weak identification and recovery evidence; estoppel barred late notice objection.
Criminal law – robbery with violence; identification evidence – proof of ownership of recovered property; recovery of stolen property in a vehicle; mere presence insufficient for conviction; estoppel – s.123 Evidence Act barring late preliminary objection about Notice of Appeal; procedural requirement – Notice of Appeal under s.361(1)(a) CPA.
|
29 June 2011 |
|
Conviction for rape of a 14-year-old pupil upheld on credible single-witness evidence despite procedural irregularities.
Criminal law – rape – sufficiency of single credible witness; admissibility of cautioned statements; PF3 inadmissible where s.240(3) rights not observed; consent immaterial for victim under 16; appellate restraint on concurrent factual findings.
|
29 June 2011 |
|
Appeals dismissed: recent possession, monitored calls and common intention sustained armed robbery convictions.
Criminal law – armed robbery – doctrine of recent possession – common intention – admissibility of extra‑judicial and cautioned statements – reliability of identification and monitored telephone evidence – appellate interference with trial conduct.
|
29 June 2011 |
|
DNA evidence alone was insufficient without detailed statistics; corroborative confessions and discovery upheld murder convictions.
Criminal law – murder – admissibility and weight of DNA profiling evidence – necessity for statistical probabilities and full methodology; retracted cautioned and extra‑judicial confessions – requirement of corroboration; confession leading to discovery; conduct of accused as corroboration; doctrine of common intention.
|
29 June 2011 |
|
An uncorroborated confession that implicates an acquitted co‑accused rendered the murder conviction unsafe; appeal allowed.
Criminal law – confession admissibility and voluntariness (s.27 Evidence Act) – trial‑within‑a‑trial procedure and timing; assessors – improper summing up and prejudice; sufficiency of uncorroborated confession where implicated co‑accused acquitted; conviction unsafe; appeal allowed.
|
28 June 2011 |
|
DNA evidence was insufficiently quantified, but corroborated confessions and discovery upheld convictions and sentences.
* Criminal law – murder – admissibility and sufficiency of DNA evidence – requirement for random occurrence ratio and detailed profiling methodology.
* Evidence – retracted cautioned/extra-judicial confessions – corroboration by confession leading to discovery, conduct and independent witnesses.
* Criminal liability – doctrine of common intention – application where co-accused participated in a planned killing and concealment.
|
28 June 2011 |
|
Appeal dismissed where accomplice confession was corroborated and alibi disproved by custody records.
Criminal law – Armed robbery; accomplice evidence – competence and corroboration (s.142 Evidence Act); possession of stolen property; alibi and custody records; burden of proof.
|
28 June 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove penetration and prove the charged date of the alleged rape.
* Criminal law – Rape – Proof of penetration required even to the slightest degree to sustain conviction.
* Criminal procedure – Particulars of offence – Prosecution must prove the specific date pleaded or amend the charge and recall witnesses.
* Evidence – Variance between charge and testimony invalidates conviction if not remedied by amendment.
|
27 June 2011 |
|
A resident magistrate with extended jurisdiction cannot hear a High Court enlargement application; transfers must comply with section 45(2).
Criminal procedure – section 361(2) CPA – enlargement of time applications filed in High Court; Magistrates' Courts Act s.45(2) – transfer applies to appeals, not incidental chamber applications; lack of jurisdiction vitiates proceedings; revision under s.4(2) AJA; remand to High Court to determine extension before hearing appeal.
|
27 June 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where child-witness evidence was improperly received without required voire dire under the Evidence Act.
* Evidence Act s.127(2) – Child witnesses – requirement for voire dire and finding that child possesses sufficient intelligence and understands duty to speak truth before receiving unsworn evidence.
* Admissibility – Failure to conduct required inquiry renders child evidence improper and may make a conviction unsafe.
* Criminal burden of proof – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt on admissible evidence; conviction cannot stand where primary evidence is inadmissible and uncorroborated.
|
27 June 2011 |
|
Credible eyewitness evidence and established motive upheld murder conviction despite expunged cautioned statement.
Criminal law – murder – credibility of witnesses – minor inconsistencies not fatal; alleged accomplice evidence – not shown to be unreliable; admissibility of cautioned statement – improper admission expunged; motive and prior ill‑treatment admissible to infer malice aforethought; child protection considerations under Law of the Child Act.
|
27 June 2011 |
|
|
27 June 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where stolen items lacked in‑court identification and searches breached statutory requirements.
Criminal law – search and seizure – section 38 Criminal Procedure Act – warrantless searches and mandatory receipt (s.38(3)); Identification of exhibits – in-court identification required before invoking doctrine of recent possession; Recent possession – prerequisites for inference of guilt; Failure to comply with statutory search procedure undermines reliability of seized evidence.
|
27 June 2011 |
|
The court upheld the applicant's conviction for unlawful possession of elephant tusks, finding evidence sufficient and no warrant required.
* Criminal law – Wildlife offences – Unauthorized possession of government trophy (elephant tusks). * Criminal procedure – Search and seizure – Section 38 CPA (search receipt) inapplicable where police intercept a vehicle while effecting an arrest and do not enter premises. * Evidence – Competence and weight of police witnesses; admissibility and probative value of a detailed cautioned statement admitted without objection. * Appellate procedure – Summary dismissal of appeals; principles and cautions (Iddi Kondo guidance).
|
27 June 2011 |
|
|
27 June 2011 |
|
Equivocal guilty plea failing to admit essential elements invalidates conviction; release ordered pending DPP decision.
Criminal law — Plea of guilty — Equivocal plea — All ingredients of offence must be admitted — s.228 Criminal Procedure Act — s.130(2)(e) Penal Code (age and marital status exception) — Conviction unsafe if plea does not admit essential elements — DPP discretion on further proceedings.
|
27 June 2011 |
|
|
24 June 2011 |
|
Admitting PF3 without summoning its author breached s240(3) and caused a miscarriage, prompting quashal and retrial for the applicant.
Criminal law – Evidence – PF3 (medical report) – section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – necessity to summon medical author for cross-examination – child witness failing voir dire (section 127 Evidence Act) – proof of penetration (section 130(4) Penal Code) – retrial under section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act where procedural irregularity causes miscarriage of justice.
|
24 June 2011 |
|
A notice of appeal that fails to name the trial judge is fatally defective and renders the appeal incompetent, therefore struck out.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – Notice of appeal must comply with Rule 61 and Form B – must identify the High Court judge whose decision is complained against. * Notice of appeal is mandatory to institute an appeal; omission of judge’s name is fatal. * Preliminary objection on competence upheld; appeal struck out.
|
24 June 2011 |
|
|
24 June 2011 |
|
A guilty plea is invalid if the charge omits essential elements and is not explained in a language the accused understands.
Criminal procedure – Plea of guilty – Necessity to explain every constituent element of the offence before accepting a plea; Rape – essential element of penetration must be pleaded and proved; Duty to explain charge in a language understood by the accused – employment of interpreter where necessary; Irregular proceedings – nullification and remittal for fresh plea.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
A dispute about termination is a "trade dispute" under s.3 Industrial Court Act; High Court lacked jurisdiction, appeal dismissed.
* Industrial Court Act, s.3 – definition of "trade dispute" – includes disputes connected with "employment or non-employment" and terms/conditions of employment.
* Jurisdiction – disputes over termination/non-employment fall within Industrial Court jurisdiction rather than High Court.
* Trade dispute vs labour dispute – phrases are inclusive/interchangeable; no jurisdictional distinction.
* Precedent – Tambueni confirms "non-employment" covers redundancy and similar termination issues.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
Conviction for personation quashed where prosecution failed to call officers to prove the alleged impersonation.
Criminal law – Personation, s.369 Penal Code – ingredients of offence – necessity to prove false representation and intent to defraud; evidential sufficiency – inability of investigatory inquiries to substitute for calling the person purportedly impersonated or relevant station officers; failure to call such witnesses may render conviction unsafe.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
Conviction for personation quashed for failure to prove identity and intent to defraud beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Personation (s.369(1) Penal Code) – Proof of identity and intent to defraud; necessity to call officers whose identity is in issue; investigative assertions insufficient; State declining to support conviction.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
Possession of unauthorised firearms is an economic offence; subordinate courts need a DPP certificate to have jurisdiction.
Economic offences – possession of unauthorised firearm and ammunition under Arms and Ammunition Act falls within EOCCA; jurisdiction of High Court as Economic Crimes Court; requirement of DPP’s certificate under sections 12(3) and 12(5) to confer jurisdiction on subordinate courts; absence of certificate renders proceedings a nullity.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
Appellants' convictions quashed: subordinate-court trial null for lack of DPP certificate required for economic offences.
* Criminal law – Jurisdiction – Economic and Organised Crime Control Act – possession of firearms and ammunition classified as economic offence – requirement of DPP certificate under s.12(3) and s.12(5) to confer jurisdiction on subordinate courts – absence renders proceedings nullity.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
Appellant's rape conviction upheld on credible complainant testimony and slight penetration; compensation ordered.
* Criminal law – Rape – Complainant's credible testimony and proof of penetration (slight penetration sufficient under s.130(4)(a) Penal Code).
* Evidence – Credibility and contradictions – Minor inconsistencies do not necessarily vitiate a conviction.
* Forensic medical report (PF3) – Probative value affected where accused not informed of right to summon doctor under s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act.
* Evidence Act s.127(7) – Single credible witness may suffice to convict.
* Sentencing/revision – Court's power under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act to order compensation under s.131(1) Penal Code.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
Convictions quashed where identification, recent possession, PF3s and cautioned statement were unreliable or improperly admitted.
* Criminal law – Visual identification – necessity of identification parade where witnesses are strangers and there is delay before arrest. * Criminal law – Doctrine of recent possession – requirements: possession, property identification, recent theft, and that seized item is subject of the charge. * Criminal procedure – Cautioned statements – statutory interviewing time-limits (s.50 CPA) and admissibility. * Criminal procedure – Medical reports (PF3) – reception in evidence and duty under s.240(3) CPA to call or advise right to call the author. * Evidence – Proof of rape requires clear evidence of penetration; corroboration rules for repudiated confessions.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
|
23 June 2011 |
|
Arrest at the scene and an oral admission established identity and justified upholding the armed robbery conviction.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification – Arrest at the scene by eyewitnesses negates mistaken identity defence. * Criminal procedure – Oral admissions – Value of spontaneous oral admission following arrest. * Evidence – Failure to call investigating officer and tendering exhibits – Non-prejudicial where identity established by eyewitnesses. * Appellate review – Omission to record express consideration of defence not necessarily fatal where prosecution case is strong.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
Rape conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove penetration and the specific date alleged in the charge.
* Criminal law – Rape – Proof of penetration required, even to the slightest degree.
* Criminal procedure – Particulars of offence – Prosecution must prove the specific date pleaded or amend the charge; material variance warrants acquittal.
* Defence – Alibi – rejection solely for lack of supporting defence witnesses is insufficient where prosecution case is defective.
|
22 June 2011 |
|
A defective charge omitting the use/threat of violence vitiated an armed robbery conviction, warranting quashal and release.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Essential elements under s.287A: stealing, being armed and use or threat of actual violence – These elements must be pleaded in particulars of charge. * Criminal procedure – Charge particulars – Requirement to allege facts essential to the offence to enable fair trial and meaningful cross-examination. * Appeals – Second appeal – Court may interfere with concurrent findings of fact where they are unreasonable, perverse or occasion a miscarriage of justice. * Remedy – Defective charge causing prejudice warrants quashing conviction; substitution with lesser offence is inappropriate where doubt remains.
|
22 June 2011 |
|
An unequivocal guilty plea admitting the prosecution's facts bars appeal against conviction; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – plea of guilty – unequivocal admission; Criminal procedure – recording of guilty pleas – requirements and procedure (Adan v Republic); Statutory rape – essential ingredients proved; Appeals barred where accused pleaded guilty (s.360(1) CPA).
|
22 June 2011 |
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction to revise finalized District Court proceedings under sections 31 and 44 of the Magistrates' Courts Act.
Magistrates' Courts Act — scope of section 31 (Part III applies to Primary Courts only); section 44 — supervisory powers of the High Court limited to non-finalized proceedings; jurisdiction to entertain revision; prohibition of circumvention of appeal rights.
|
22 June 2011 |
|
High Court improperly summarily rejected the appellant's appeal; conviction based on unreliable identification evidence was quashed.
* Criminal procedure – Summary dismissal of appeals under section 364(1)(c) Criminal Procedure Act – powers to be exercised sparingly; judge must read and indicate having read record and give reasons where appropriate. * Identification evidence – reliance on moonlight/fire and witness familiarity – insufficiency and inconsistencies may render conviction unsafe. * Appellate jurisdiction – exercise of revisional powers under section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act to quash unsafe convictions.
|
22 June 2011 |
|
|
22 June 2011 |