|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2019 |
|
|
The applicant's rape conviction upheld despite voir dire omission; child testimony corroborated and medical evidence admissible.
Criminal law – Rape – Evidence of child witnesses – voir dire omission not necessarily fatal; unsworn child evidence requires corroboration. Evidence – Corroboration – sworn testimony of another witness and medical evidence can corroborate unsworn child testimony. Medical evidence – Clinical officer competent to examine and give oral evidence; PF3 is not substantive evidence. Appeal procedure – Grounds not raised and decided in lower court will not be entertained on appeal. Credibility – Remote or fanciful possibilities do not displace solid, corroborated evidence.
|
3 December 2019 |
|
Appellant's conviction upheld: omission to conduct voir dire not fatal where child testimony and medical evidence were corroborative.
Criminal law – Rape – Evidence of child witness and voir dire – Omission to conduct voir dire not fatal where unsworn child evidence is corroborated; corroboration by a sworn older child permissible. Medical evidence – Clinical officer competent to give oral evidence of physical findings; PF3 not substantive if author testifies. Appeal – Fanciful possibilities cannot displace strong, corroborated prosecution case.
|
3 December 2019 |
|
Omission of voir dire not fatal where unsworn child evidence was corroborated by other competent testimony.
Criminal law – Rape; Evidence – child witness, voir dire and unsworn testimony; Corroboration by other witnesses; Medical evidence – PF3 and clinical officer competence; Appellate review – inadmissible/new grounds not considered.
|
3 December 2019 |
|
Night-time single-witness identification and unexplained arrest delay undermined convictions; s226 trial in absence was valid.
Criminal law - armed robbery; visual identification - single witness at night; recognition evidence; Waziri Amani guidelines; section 226 CPA - trial in absence after escape; unexplained delay in arrest.
|
3 December 2019 |
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant extension after appeal transferred to subordinate court with extended jurisdiction; its proceedings were quashed.
Appellate jurisdiction — transfer under s.45(2) MCA — effect of transfer; Extension of time — s.11(1) AJA — subordinate court with extended jurisdiction has exclusive power to extend time after transfer; Jurisdiction — High Court lacks jurisdiction once appeal transferred; Revision — s.4(2) AJA to quash null proceedings.
|
3 December 2019 |
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant extension after appeal was transferred to a subordinate court with extended jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction — Transfer under section 45(2) MCA — Appeal heard by subordinate court with extended jurisdiction — Section 11(1) AJA grants power to extend time to the subordinate court in such cases — High Court lacked jurisdiction — Proceedings nullity — Revisional powers under section 4(2) AJA to quash and set aside.
|
3 December 2019 |
|
Omission by successor judges to record reasons and judgment by a judge who heard no witnesses rendered subsequent proceedings void.
Civil Procedure – Order XVIII r.10 CPC – Successor judge taking over partly heard trial must record reasons; failure is a serious irregularity; judgment by judge who did not hear witnesses may be nullity; overriding-objective (AJA ss.3A–3B) does not automatically cure such defects; retrial or continuation from point of lawful proceedings ordered.
|
2 December 2019 |
|
Failure to sum up vital legal points to assessors vitiated the trial; proceedings quashed and retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – trials before High Court with assessors – duty to sum up to assessors on both facts and all vital points of law – failure to direct assessors on vital legal issues (retracted confession, identification, alibi, malice aforethought, common intention, burden of proof) vitiates proceedings – defect not curable under section 388 CPA or overriding objective – retrial ordered.
|
2 December 2019 |
|
Failure to sum up vital points of law to assessors vitiates the trial and mandates quashing and retrial.
Criminal procedure – trials before High Court with assessors – necessity to sum up to assessors on both facts and all vital points of law – failure to do so vitiates proceedings; incurable by s.388 CPA or overriding objective – retrial ordered.
|
2 December 2019 |
|
Appellate court upheld the appellant's ten-year manslaughter sentence as properly balanced between mitigation and aggravation.
Criminal law – Manslaughter – Sentencing – appellate interference only if sentence manifestly excessive or material factors ignored; mitigation (first offender, guilty plea, remand time, provocation) versus aggravation (multiple stab wounds, vulnerable parts, victim’s pleas, time to cool off).
|
2 December 2019 |
|
A respondent requesting appeal documents and issuing reminders is not at fault for delay caused by the Registrar's non‑response.
Civil procedure — Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 — Rule 89(2): striking out notice of appeal for failure to take essential steps. Administrative duty of Registrar — obligation to respond to requests for appeal documents and to notify of impediments. Delay in instituting appeal — when delay is attributable to Registrar's non‑supply of documents, the appealing party not to be penalized.
|
2 December 2019 |
|
An appeal missing trial tribunal proceedings and containing a defective drawn order is incompetent and struck out.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Record of appeal – completeness – omission of trial tribunal proceedings renders appeal incompetent. Civil procedure – Drawn order – inconsistency between drawn order and court decision undermines appeal competency. Appellate jurisdiction – Revisionary powers – limited to rare and exceptional cases; cannot be used to circumvent procedural rules. Remedy – striking out incompetent appeal; no costs where defects are raised suo motu by the Court.
|
2 December 2019 |
|
A second-bite extension application was struck out as time-barred for failing to comply with Rule 45A requirements.
Civil procedure — Extension of time under Rule 45A — 14-day limit for application after High Court refusal — Exclusion for time taken to obtain records requires registrar's certificate — Second-bite application struck out as time-barred.
|
2 December 2019 |