|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2015 |
|
|
Omission to state grounds in a Notice of Motion under Rule 48(1) renders the application incompetent and subject to striking out.
Civil procedure – extension of time under Rule 10; preliminary objections – Mukisa test; Rule 48(1) – mandatory requirement to state grounds in Notice of Motion; curative role of supporting affidavit; factual objections not suitable at preliminary stage.
|
30 September 2015 |
|
|
30 September 2015 |
|
Conviction for unnatural offence upheld: eyewitness and medical evidence sufficient despite victim’s non‑testimony and omission of age.
Criminal law – Unnatural offence (s.154 Penal Code) – proof beyond reasonable doubt; corroboration by eyewitness and medical evidence
Evidence – testimony of child victims and non-production of victim in court; relevance of evidence under Evidence Act
Procedural – charge sheet particulars; age relevant to sentence not proof. Forensic evidence – PF3 medical report signed after admission date; admissibility and probative value
Defence – allegation of fabrication; assessment of afterthought defences
|
30 September 2015 |
|
The applicant’s review application citing revoked rules was incompetent and struck out for incorrect rule citation.
Court of Appeal Rules (2009) – New Rules effective 1 February 2010 – applicability to applications filed after that date. Civil/criminal procedure – notice of motion must cite specific enabling rule (Rule 48(1)). Review applications – governed by Rule 66 of the New Rules. Non-citation or wrong citation of enabling provision renders application incompetent. Continuity of proceedings – Rule 130 preserves Old Rules only for matters initiated before New Rules' commencement
|
30 September 2015 |
|
Conviction for unnatural offence upheld: evidence sufficed despite victim's absence, charge-sheet omission, and delayed PF3 signature.
Criminal law – Unnatural offence – Proof beyond reasonable doubt; evidential weight of eyewitness testimony and medical PF3; absence of child witness — permissible where tender age and corroboration exist; omission of victim's age in charge sheet not fatal to proof (relevant to sentencing only); appellate review of alleged fabrication of prosecution case.
|
29 September 2015 |
|
A stay of execution depends on a valid notice of appeal and collapses once that notice is struck out.
Civil procedure – Rule 64(2) Court of Appeal Rules – rescission/variation of Court orders; stay of execution – requires valid notice of appeal; preliminary objections – jurat requirements; limitation – no implied sixty‑day bar for Rule 64(2) applications.
|
23 September 2015 |
|
Court struck out extension application because representative suit and affidavit by a non‑party lacked legal mandate.
Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules – representative suits – validity of affidavits sworn by non-parties – Order I Rule 8(1) CPC not applicable to Court of Appeal – preliminary objection sustaining striking out of application.
|
22 September 2015 |
|
Convictions quashed where identification was unreliable and key statements were irregularly admitted.
Evidence — confession and voluntariness (s.27 Evidence Act) — requirement for enquiry before admitting cautioned statement; Evidence — admissibility of out‑of‑court statements where maker not called (s.34B(2) Evidence Act) — statutory conditions must be satisfied; Identification — dock identification inadequate without prior identification parade or descriptive evidence; Criminal standard — prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; irregularly admitted evidence must be expunged.
|
22 September 2015 |
|
|
17 September 2015 |
|
Court upheld heroin trafficking convictions: substance qualified as heroin, chain of custody and identification were satisfactory, alibi failed.
Criminal law – trafficking narcotic drugs – whether heroin hydrochloride falls within statutory "narcotic drug"; expert evidence
Evidence – chain of custody – sufficiency where arresting officer's control and chemist's report link seizure to analysis. Criminal procedure – alibi notices and consideration on appeal; when first appellate court may assess alibi
Identification – dock identification by familiar witness; when identification parade not required. Common design – inference from presence, shared items and documents
|
16 September 2015 |
|
Non‑compliance with s.291 CPA made the autopsy inadmissible, but strong eyewitness identification sustained the murder convictions.
Criminal law – admissibility of post‑mortem report – mandatory requirement under s.291(3) CPA to inform accused of right to have doctor summoned; Preliminary hearing procedure (s.192, Accelerated Trial Rules) – accused must be addressed personally; Identification evidence – prior acquaintance, proximity, duration and naming of suspects; Alibi defence – rejected where identification is strong.
|
9 September 2015 |
|
Failure to evaluate the appellant's alibi rendered the conviction unsafe and warranted quashing and release.
Evidence Act s.127(2) – Voir dire for child witnesses – proper test for understanding an oath; misdirection may not expunge evidence but affects weight
Criminal Procedure Act s.234(3) – Variance in time between charge and evidence immaterial. PF3 admissibility – competent but not conclusive on penetration or identity. Criminal procedure – duty to evaluate both prosecution and defence evidence; failure to consider alibi causes miscarriage of justice. Appellate revisional powers – quashing unsafe convictions where trial was unfair
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Conviction quashed because trial and first appellate courts failed to evaluate the appellant’s alibi, causing miscarriage of justice.
Criminal law – Evidence – Child witness voire dire – competency and understanding of oath; Criminal procedure – Variance between charge and evidence as to time – s.234(3) CPA – immaterial; Criminal procedure – Duty to evaluate defence (alibi) – failure to consider defence amounts to miscarriage of justice; Appellate jurisdiction – Exercise of revisional powers to quash unsafe convictions.
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Appellant’s murder conviction and death sentence upheld where eyewitness and circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain proving guilt.
Criminal law – Murder – conviction based on combined direct eyewitness evidence and circumstantial evidence – unbroken chain of inferences required for circumstantial proof
Evidence – inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts from chaotic scenes – minor variations do not necessarily impeach core facts
Procedure – role of assessors and trial judge’s duty to address circumstantial evidence submissions in summing-up
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Applicant’s murder conviction by a police officer upheld on combined eyewitness, ammunition and post-mortem evidence.
Criminal law – Murder – Conviction of ex-police constable for shooting death following arrest – Role of eyewitness testimony and post-mortem findings
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Application of principles and drawing of inferences from an unbroken chain of facts
Evidence – Witness credibility and inconsistencies – Minor, explainable discrepancies not fatal to prosecution case. Police conduct – Issue of missing ammunition and conduct in handling and delivering the body to the mortuary
|
3 September 2015 |
|
A private confession corroborated by discovery can sustain a murder conviction despite an expunged cautioned statement.
Evidence — Confession: private admission to a relative qualifies as a confession under the Evidence Act; corroborative discovery strengthens admissibility; cautioned statement recorded outside four-hour statutory period is inadmissible and expunged; post-mortem report admitted at preliminary hearing and treated as proved under s.192(4) CPA; appellate court will ordinarily respect trial court credibility findings; s.169 CPA and s.145 Evidence Act govern admissibility inquiries.
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Appellate court expunged a tardy cautioned statement but upheld conviction based on voluntary confessions and discovery.
Criminal procedure – admissibility of evidence – objections to illegally obtained evidence should be raised at trial – relevance of sections 145 (Evidence Act) and 169 (CPA)
Evidence – cautioned statement – statement taken outside statutory four-hour period expunged
Evidence – post-mortem report admitted at preliminary hearing and deemed proved under section 192(4) CPA
Confession – private admission and subsequent open-air confession plus discovery of weapon can sustain conviction
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Omission of 'intent to defraud' in a false pretences charge rendered the conviction unsafe; appeal allowed.
Criminal law – Obtaining by false pretences – Essential element 'intent to defraud' must be alleged in the charge – Omission renders charge defective and conviction unsafe – Conviction and sentence quashed.
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Omitting the allegation of "intent to defraud" in an obtaining-by-false-pretences charge renders the conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Obtaining by false pretences – Essential ingredient: "intent to defraud" must be alleged in the particulars of the charge; omission is fatal – Defective charge – Conviction unsafe and liable to be quashed.
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Strict, cumulative compliance with Evidence Act s34B is mandatory; non‑compliant written statements are inadmissible and can vitiate a conviction.
Evidence Act s.34B – written statements in lieu of oral testimony – strict and cumulative compliance with s.34B(2)(a)–(f) required; absence of signature/declaration and failure to serve copies fatal to admissibility; court must enforce statutory requirements irrespective of defence silence; expunction of inadmissible statements may render conviction unsafe where remaining evidence is hearsay.
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Admission of statutory hearsay statements that failed s.34B requirements rendered the conviction unsafe; conviction quashed.
Criminal law – Evidence Act s.34B – Admissibility of written statements in lieu of oral evidence – Cumulative compliance with s.34B(2)(a)–(f) mandatory – failure to serve copies, lack of maker’s declaration and unsigned statement vitiate admissibility – wrongly admitted statements to be expunged – insufficient remaining evidence amounts to failure to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt.
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Failure to consider the defence evidence rendered the appellant's conviction unsafe and was quashed.
Criminal law – Incest – conviction largely based on DNA and victim testimony – Failure to consider defence evidence – improper evaluation vitiates conviction – appellate duty to re-evaluate evidence – miscarriage of justice.
|
3 September 2015 |
|
Conviction quashed for failure to evaluate accused's alibi, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
Criminal law – child witnesses – voir dire under s.127(2) Evidence Act – competence to understand oath; Criminal procedure – variance in time between charge and evidence – s.234(3) CPA – immaterial; Evidence – PF3 admissibility and weight; Criminal procedure – duty to evaluate defence evidence (alibi) – failure to do so causes miscarriage of justice; Appellate jurisdiction – revisional powers to quash unsafe convictions.
|
2 September 2015 |
|
Interim orders made without hearing affected parties violated the constitutional right to be heard and were set aside; record remitted for rehearing.
Civil procedure — interim orders — status quo — requirement to afford affected parties hearing — breach of audi alteram partem vitiates order. Judicial procedure — chambers/urgent applications — limits on ex parte relief and contempt orders against named officials. Appellate jurisdiction — exercise of revisional powers under s.4(3) AJA to set aside irregular orders and remit for rehearing
|
2 September 2015 |
|
Conviction quashed where trial and first appellate courts failed to evaluate the appellant's defence, rendering the verdict unsafe.
Criminal law – Evaluation of evidence – Duty of trial court to assess probative value, credibility and weight of defence evidence; failure is fatal. Criminal procedure – First appeal – duty to re-evaluate evidence and remedy trial court omissions
Evidence – Reliance on DNA report – where evaluation of defence is omitted conviction may be unsafe regardless of forensic evidence
|
2 September 2015 |
|
Failure to state grounds in the Notice of Motion renders an application incompetent and liable to be struck out.
Civil procedure – Preliminary points of objection – Notice of Motion must state grounds for relief under Rule 48(1) – Failure to state grounds renders application incompetent and liable to be struck out; Court’s discretion under Rule 10 to extend time; distinction between pure points of law and issues requiring factual enquiry or judicial discretion.
|
1 September 2015 |
|
Omission of the case number in a notice of appeal renders a criminal appeal incompetent and subject to striking out.
Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Rule 68(2) and (7) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Mandatory contents (case number, date, presiding judge/magistrate) – Substantial compliance required; omission renders notice incurably defective – Appeal struck out.
|
1 September 2015 |
|
A notice of appeal omitting the case number and required particulars is incurably defective and renders the appeal incompetent.
Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – compliance with Rule 68(2) & (7) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – notice must state case number, date of judgment, presiding judge/magistrate and originating court; non‑compliance renders appeal incompetent; Resident Magistrate (Extended Jurisdiction) decisions must be correctly identified.
|
1 September 2015 |
|
Conviction for unlawful confinement unsustainable under s.300 CPA absent evidence proving confinement and requisite mens rea.
Criminal law – substitution of offences under section 300 Criminal Procedure Act; requirements for proving a minor or substituted offence; unlawful confinement (s.253 Penal Code) – necessity of proof of act/omission and mens rea; compensation orders dependent on sustainable conviction.
|
1 September 2015 |
|
Conviction for unlawful confinement and compensation quashed where evidence did not prove confinement or causation of death.
Criminal law – Substitution of offences under section 300 Criminal Procedure Act – Requirements that proved particulars reduce to a cognate/minor offence – Wrongful confinement (s.253 Penal Code) – Proof of mens rea and causation – Compensation ordered on a conviction that is unsustained.
|
1 September 2015 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove breaking and omitted to call crucial witnesses.
Criminal law – burden of proof – prosecution must prove breaking and theft beyond reasonable doubt
Evidence – particulars of breaking and inspection of scene; general assertions insufficient
Witnesses – duty to call material witnesses; failure permits adverse inference (Azizi Abdalla principle)
Defence – alibi and the court's duty to address it under section 194(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act
|
1 September 2015 |
|
A Notice of Appeal misdescribing the conviction renders the appeal incompetent and will be struck out.
Criminal procedure – Notice of Appeal – mandatory requirement to state nature of conviction, sentence, order or finding – misstatement renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
1 September 2015 |
|
A third criminal appeal is incompetent without a High Court certificate that a point of law is involved.
Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.6(7)(b) – Third appeals in criminal matters – Requirement of High Court certificate that a point of law is involved – Failure to obtain certificate renders appeal incompetent – Appeal struck out.
|
1 September 2015 |
|
A criminal third appeal is incompetent and must be struck out unless the High Court certifies a point of law is involved.
Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.6(7)(b) — criminal third appeals — requirement of High Court certificate that a point of law is involved — competence of appeal — striking out for non-compliance; right to refile subject to limitation.
|
1 September 2015 |
|
The applicant’s constitutional right to be heard was denied, rendering the High Court’s determination void and requiring a fresh hearing.
Constitutional and procedural law – Right to be heard (Article 13(6)(a)) – Judicial recusal – Determination without hearing parties – Nullity of proceedings – Quashing and ordering rehearing before another judge.
|
1 September 2015 |