|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 2014 |
|
|
The applicant failed to show sufficient cause and non-compliance with section 47(1) rendered the extension application incompetent, so it was struck out with costs.
Extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – requirement to show sufficient cause; delay due to inaction or lack of diligence; two-stage delay analysis; competence – effect of failure to obtain leave under section 47(1) Land Disputes Courts Act; Rule 58(3) power to strike out; merits not considered where application incompetent.
|
12 March 2014 |
|
Alleged illegality (non-joinder and denial of hearing) justified extension of time to seek revision.
Civil procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – good cause – alleged illegality as sufficient reason to extend time (Devram Valambia principle). Civil procedure – preliminary objection – competence of application for extension of time – application for extension is procedural and not 'hopelessly out of time'. Administrative law – non-joinder and denial of hearing – allegation of illegality may justify extension to enable substantive review.
|
11 March 2014 |
|
A child’s unsworn testimony, corroborated by a parent and the accused’s admissions, upheld a rape conviction despite procedural defects.
Criminal law – Rape – Proof of penetration (even slight) suffices under the Penal Code. Child witness – defective voir dire; unsworn evidence requiring corroboration. Evidence – PF3 improperly admitted where accused not informed of right to call doctor (s.240(3) CPA); expunged. Related witnesses – relatedness does not invalidate competence or credibility (s.127 Law of Evidence Act). Admissions – accused’s admission to lay witnesses can corroborate complainant.
|
10 March 2014 |
|
Conviction for armed robbery upheld: preliminary hearing lawfully held and eyewitness credibility established identity beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – proof of violence or threat; identity evidence – eyewitness credibility and corroboration; preliminary hearing and compliance with s.192 Criminal Procedure Act; scope for disturbing concurrent findings of fact on second appeal.
|
10 March 2014 |
|
Appeal dismissed: eyewitness credibility and supporting evidence established appellant's identity and guilt for armed robbery.
Criminal law — Armed robbery — Identification by eyewitnesses — Credibility of victim as basis for conviction; Evidence — Recovered exhibits (money and knife); Criminal procedure — Section 192 CPA and preliminary hearing; Appellate review — Concurrent findings of fact not to be disturbed absent misapprehension of evidence.
|
10 March 2014 |
|
An application was struck out as incompetent where filings confused and used review and revision interchangeably, breaching Court Rules.
Civil procedure – Competency of application – application for extension of time to file review or revision – importance of specifying correct remedy and observing 60‑day limit. Court Rules – distinction between review (Rule 66) and revision (Rule 65) – separate procedures and requirements. Single Justice jurisdiction – competency challenges to applications before a Single Justice and appropriate remedies.
|
6 March 2014 |
|
Summary rejection of first appeal was improper where substantial issues (charge, age, penetration, witness credibility) required full consideration.
Criminal procedure – summary rejection of first appeal under section 364(1)(c) – requirements for summarily dismissing an appeal; Criminal law – rape charge particulars – correct statutory subsection where victim is under 18; Evidence – proof of age, proof of penetration, related prosecution witnesses, and compliance with section 63 and PF3 requirements.
|
6 March 2014 |
|
An appellant who requested and served a written application for appeal records within 30 days is entitled to rule 90 time exclusion.
Civil procedure – Appeal procedure – Striking out notice of appeal for failure to take essential steps – Court Rules 2009, Rule 89(2) and Rule 90(1),(2) – Application for copies of High Court proceedings made within thirty days and served on respondent entitles appellant to time exclusion – Strike-out application dismissed.
|
6 March 2014 |
|
Application for revision struck out for failing to attach impugned orders, premature challenge to interlocutory rulings, and incorrect legal citation.
Appellate jurisdiction – Revision – Interlocutory orders not appealable or revisable unless final – Requirement to attach impugned orders to revision application – Wrong citation of law renders application incompetent – Procedural compliance under Rule 65.
|
6 March 2014 |
|
Subordinate courts lack jurisdiction to try economic offences without DPP consent and transfer; such proceedings are null and void.
Criminal procedure – Economic and Organized Crimes Control Act – offences of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition characterised as economic offences requiring DPP consent and certificate of transfer for trial in subordinate courts. Jurisdiction – Subordinate court lacks jurisdiction to try economic offences or combined economic/ordinary offences without DPP consent; trial and subsequent proceedings are null and void. Remedy – Quashing of proceedings; retrial discretionary and declined where prosecution elects not to proceed; release ordered if no other lawful custody.
|
4 March 2014 |
|
Appellants' convictions quashed for inadequate identification of persons and property and an irregular sentence.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Necessity for naming suspects at earliest opportunity and eliminating missing links between crime and arrest; identification parades. Evidence – Identification of property – need for specific marks/serial numbers for items like bicycles. Criminal procedure – Alibi raised without notice under s.194(4) should nonetheless be assessed under s.194(6). Sentencing – Minimum statutory sentence must be observed unless special circumstances justify departure.
|
4 March 2014 |
|
An unambiguous guilty plea admitting essential facts precludes appeal against conviction absent evidence of mistake or legal incapacity to be convicted.
Criminal law – plea of guilty – effect of plea on right of appeal – section 360(1) CPA and exceptions (Rex v Forder; Laurent Mpinga). Plea validity – imperfect, ambiguous or mistaken plea – criteria for setting aside plea. Evidence – presumption of accuracy of record of proceedings absent contrary evidence. Double jeopardy – distinct offences and effect of retrial and acquittal. Harmless irregularity – extraneous reference to another case not occasioning miscarriage of justice.
|
4 March 2014 |
|
Extension of time granted where draft review notice was misplaced by prison authorities; applicant ordered to file within 30 days.
Criminal procedure — Extension of time under Rule 10 — Good cause where prison authorities misplace a document — Unopposed affidavits and applicant’s diligence — Discretionary relief to file review application within specified period.
|
4 March 2014 |
|
Whether the appellant's robbery conviction could rest on recent possession without proof the cash was the mission's stolen money.
Criminal law — Armed robbery — Doctrine of recent possession — Requirements: (1) property found with suspect; (2) property positively the complainant's; (3) recently stolen; (4) stolen thing in accused's possession is subject of the charge — All requisites must be proved. Evidence — Identification and link between recovered/changed currency and stolen notes — absence of serial/positive link undermines reliance on recent possession. Appellate review — Concurrent findings may be disturbed where there is misapprehension of evidence or law.
|
3 March 2014 |
|
Convictions quashed: visual identification unsafe and prosecution failed to call a crucial witness.
Criminal law – Visual identification – Reliability under moonlight and firelight – necessity to exclude all possibilities of mistaken identity. Criminal procedure – Prosecution’s non-production of a potentially material witness – permissible adverse inference. Evidence – Delay in naming suspects at earliest opportunity – effect on witness credibility and identification evidence. Corroboration – Vagueness of police evidence and alleged flight insufficient to corroborate weak identification.
|
3 March 2014 |
|
Convictions quashed where doctrine of recent possession inapplicable absent proof of possession and procedural irregularity existed.
Criminal law – doctrine of recent possession – possession is a prerequisite; receipt is not proof of possession. Evidence – visual identification at night – reliability questioned. Criminal procedure – requirement to enter conviction before sentencing (s.235(1) Criminal Procedure Act) – failure is irregularity. Sufficiency of prosecution evidence – convictions quashed where no link by possession to stolen property.
|
3 March 2014 |
|
An appellate court will not disturb a manslaughter sentence absent error or manifest excess, despite the applicant's family responsibilities.
Criminal law – Manslaughter – plea of guilty and sentencing. Sentencing – appellate review – interference only for wrong principle, manifestly excessive/inadequate sentence, or overlooked material factors. Mitigation – family responsibilities – limited weight where offender killed the mother of his children.
|
3 March 2014 |
|
Appeal struck out for non‑compliance with mandatory leave requirement under section 47(1) of the Land Disputes Courts Act.
Land Disputes Courts Act (No. 2 of 2002) – section 47(1) – mandatory requirement of prior leave of High Court (Land Division) for appeals to the Court of Appeal – non‑compliance renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out; Civil procedure – preliminary objection to competence – adjournment to obtain counsel not a remedy for jurisdictional defect; Right to reinstitute appeal subject to limitation once statutory leave obtained.
|
3 March 2014 |
|
Victims’ credible uncorroborated testimony upheld rape convictions; appellate court ordered mandatory compensation.
Criminal law – Rape – Sufficiency of evidence – victim’s testimony may suffice without corroboration under s.127(7) Evidence Act where court records reasons and is satisfied witness truthful. Criminal procedure – Admission of PF.3 medical reports – compliance with s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act necessary; non-compliance may render PF.3 objectionable but conviction may stand on other credible evidence. Appeals – Concurrent findings of fact – appellate court will not disturb credibility findings absent misdirection or miscarriage of justice. Sentencing – Mandatory compensation under s.131(1) Penal Code – appellate court may make such order if lower court omitted it.
|
3 March 2014 |
|
Proceedings were nullified due to a material variance in the charge, failure to summon a material witness and defective judgment formalities.
Criminal procedure – material variance between charge sheet and evidence – failure to summon material witness under s.195(1) CPA – variance not curable under s.234(3). Criminal procedure – judgment formalities – judgment prepared by one magistrate, delivered by another; failure to enter conviction contrary to s.235(1) CPA. Evidence – identification – adequacy of lighting, vantage point and particulars required for safe identification. Remedies – retrial, remittal and revisional nullification – double jeopardy concerns and appropriateness of remedies. Appellate jurisdiction – exercise of revise power under s.4(2) AJA to declare proceedings a nullity and order release.
|
3 March 2014 |
|
Proceedings nullified for material variance and defective judgment; appellant ordered released.
Criminal procedure – material variance between charge and evidence for failure to summon a material complainant (s.195 Criminal Procedure Act); invalidation of proceedings where variance is not curable (s.234(3)); defective judgment for failure to enter conviction (s.235(1)); identification evidence – necessity of particulars as to lighting and vantage point; retrial vs. double jeopardy; exercise of revisional jurisdiction (s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act) – declaration of nullity and order for release.
|
3 March 2014 |
|
Conviction quashed after victim’s evidence, PF3 and cautioned statement were found legally inadmissible.
Criminal law – Rape – Evidence of child of tender age – Requirement for proper voire dire under section 127 Evidence Act; Medical report (PF3) – admissibility and right to summon maker under section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act; Cautioned statement – time limits under sections 50 and 51 and inadmissibility under section 169 Criminal Procedure Act; Charge formulation – correct statutory provisions (Penal Code ss.130–131 as amended by Sexual Offences Act).
|
3 March 2014 |
|
Applicant's extension application confused review and revision and was struck out as incompetent.
Civil procedure – competence of applications – extension of time to apply for review or revision – requirement to distinguish review (Rule 66) and revision (Rule 65) of the Court of Appeal Rules; improper interchange of terms renders application incompetent. Jurisdictional/ procedural challenge – competence of Single Justice to hear applications and proper remedy where dissatisfied with single-Justice decisions (reference versus review/revision).
|
1 March 2014 |
|
Failure to record witness evidence in first‑person narrative vitiated trial proceedings; appeal proceedings declared nullity and appellant released.
Criminal procedure — Recording of evidence — s.210(1)(a) & (b) Criminal Procedure Act (CAP 20) — evidence must be recorded in first‑person narrative; failure is mandatory non‑compliance and vitiates proceedings. Revision powers — s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act — Court may declare proceedings nullity and order release; DPP to decide on fresh charges considering time served.
|
1 March 2014 |
|
Convictions quashed where visual ID, recent-possession proof and cautioned statements were unreliable or improperly admitted.
Criminal law – visual identification – requirements including description of light, proximity and early description; dock identification unreliable without identification parade. Criminal law – recent possession – property must be sufficiently identified and linked to complainant; prosecution must prove ownership and recent theft. Evidence – cautioned/confessional statements – voluntariness burden on prosecution; when objected to, a trial-within-trial or inquiry is mandatory. Burden of proof – courts must not shift burden by treating defence weaknesses as strengthening prosecution case.
|
1 March 2014 |
|
Appellate court reduced the applicant’s manslaughter sentence for failure to consider mitigating factors.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Whether sentence is manifestly excessive – Failure to consider mitigating factors (plea of guilty, first offender, age, time served) – Appellate interference and substitution of sentence.
|
1 March 2014 |