|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| July 1986 |
|
|
An appeal asserting the suit was time‑barred cannot be decided without primary facts or definite dates in the record.
Limitation law — Whether suit is time‑barred — appellate courts require primary facts (definite dates) to determine limitation. Appellate procedure — Certification of point of law for appeal — inappropriate if issue not raised earlier and record lacks factual foundation. Civil appeals — standards for restoring or upsetting lower court awards in domestic/property disputes.
|
26 July 1986 |
|
An appellate court will not decide a time-bar issue absent primary facts or when the parties did not raise it.
Property dispute; succession/ownership of livestock; limitation of actions—whether suit time-barred; appellate review—need for primary facts to decide limitation points; impropriety of certifying/deciding issues not raised by parties.
|
26 July 1986 |
|
Insufficient factual dates precluded deciding whether the claim was time-barred; High Court decision restored and appeal dismissed.
Limitation law – time-bar – requirement of primary facts and definite dates to determine when cause of action arose – court cannot decide limitation point on bare mentions of years. Appellate procedure – certification of point of law – inappropriate to certify or decide issue not raised by parties and lacking factual basis. Civil appeals – appellate review where lower court judgments set aside and restored.
|
26 July 1986 |
|
Trial court’s finding that the plough was lent, not sold, and its damages award were upheld; appeal dismissed with costs.
Property law – Sale versus bailment/loan – whether a chattel (plough) was sold with a tractor or merely lent; credibility of witnesses and appellate deference to trial court factual findings; assessment and reasonableness of damages for loss of use.
|
26 July 1986 |
|
Non‑compliance with Court of Appeal procedural rules and a pending High Court application rendered the appeal incompetent.
Appellate procedure — competency of appeal — compliance with Court of Appeal Rules (Rules 76, 82, 83, 89, 122); requirement for leave under s.5(1)(c) Appellate Jurisdiction Act; effect of pending High Court application on appeal prematurity; ex parte proceedings following counsel withdrawal; necessity of affidavit support for serious allegations against officers of the court.
|
25 July 1986 |
|
Appeal struck out as incompetent for failure to comply with Court of Appeal Rules and absence of required leave.
Appeal procedure – compliance with Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 76, Rule 82, Rule 83) – time for filing notice of appeal – certificate for copies and payment/security for costs – requirement of leave under s.5(1)(c) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – competency and prematurity of appeal – ex parte proceedings following counsel’s withdrawal – unsupported allegations of misconduct require affidavit evidence.
|
25 July 1986 |
Civil Practice and Procedure - Ex-parte orders - Application to set them aside - Appellant had deliberately absented herself from the hearing of the applications - Whether request to set aside the orders may be acceded to. |
25 July 1986 |
|
Claim of provocation from alleged witchcraft taunts insufficient; credible evidence showed deliberate armed attack—appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Murder – Provocation defence – Allegations of witchcraft and taunts insufficient to establish lawful provocation reducing murder to manslaughter; credibility of eyewitnesses and evidence of an armed, deliberate assault upheld conviction.
|
24 July 1986 |
|
An appellant's belief in witchcraft and an alleged taunt did not amount to provocation; murder conviction upheld.
Criminal law – Murder – Provocation – Whether an alleged taunt and belief in witchcraft constituted provocation; Evidence and credibility – assessment of witness testimony and accused’s version; Joint armed assault and deliberate killing – distinguishes murder from provoked manslaughter.
|
24 July 1986 |
|
Appeal dismissed: identification reliable and death by strangulation established despite problematic hearsay post-mortem note.
Criminal law — identification evidence — eyewitness chase and capture; sexual assault and death — cause of death: asphyxia by strangulation; admissibility issues — post-mortem note based on another's observations (hearsay); reduction of murder to manslaughter for lack of evidence of sobriety questioned.
|
24 July 1986 |
|
Eyewitness identification and medical evidence established strangulation during attempted rape; appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Reliability of eyewitness identification arising from pursuit and arrest; Criminal law – Sexual offences and homicide – death by strangulation during attempted rape; Evidence – Medical evidence – inadmissibility of a post-mortem report based on another examiner’s observations (hearsay) and professional impropriety; Criminal law – Murder versus manslaughter – reduction of charge and absence of cross-appeal.
|
24 July 1986 |
|
Appellant’s 12-year sentence reduced to 5 years; intoxication is relevant to mens rea, not an aggravating sentencing factor.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Intoxication: not an aggravating factor but relevant to formation of mens rea; credit for remand time; reduction of excessive sentence from 12 to 5 years.
|
23 July 1986 |
|
Intoxication relates to mens rea and cannot be used as an aggravating sentencing factor; sentence reduced from 12 to 5 years.
Criminal law – sentencing – intoxication affects mens rea and is not an aggravating factor in sentencing; excessive sentence reduced where appellant served long remand custody; conviction based on dying declaration and manslaughter upheld.
|
23 July 1986 |
|
Eyewitness identification and corroboration upheld; alibi rejected and murder conviction affirmed.
Criminal law – Murder – Eyewitness identification – Reliability and corroboration of eyewitness evidence; Alibi plea – sufficiency and rejection; Misstatement in judgment immaterial where primary evidence and corroboration are overwhelming.
|
23 July 1986 |
|
Circumstantial evidence and the accused’s conduct in leading police to remains upheld a murder conviction despite no proved motive.
Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – Sufficiency to convict of murder; Identification evidence and identification parade; Accused leading police to remains as incriminating conduct; Failure to cross‑examine on alternative account an afterthought; Lack of motive irrelevant where guilt proved.
|
23 July 1986 |
|
Cumulative circumstantial evidence, including being last seen with the victim and leading police to remains, upheld the murder conviction.
Criminal law — Circumstantial evidence — Sufficiency to convict — Identification and discovery of remains — Credibility of accused's denials and afterthought explanations — Lack of motive not fatal to conviction.
|
23 July 1986 |
|
Extension of time to appeal dismissed for inadequate reasons and non‑compliance with appeal rules and leave requirement.
Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal; Court of Appeal Rules r.83(1),(2) – time limits and record preparation; Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(1)(c) – leave for important point of law; insufficiency of bare assertions of non‑negligent delay.
|
23 July 1986 |
|
Court upheld conviction on identification evidence and affirmed 12‑year sentence for violent night robbery.
Criminal law – Robbery at night – Identification evidence – concurrent findings of fact – appellate interference only if misdirection or inadequate evidence. Sentence – Severity justified by aggravating factors: violence, injuries, firearms, and night-time robbery.
|
22 July 1986 |
|
A disputed land entry was essentially a civil matter; insufficient mens rea and an invalid order led to quashed convictions.
Criminal law – trespass and malicious damage – requirement of mens rea and intention – honest mistaken belief may negate criminal liability Evidence – admissibility and weight of unsigned/copy minutes – cannot conclusively establish divestment of title Civil v. criminal – land ownership disputes ordinarily civil, not criminal Orders – invalid prohibitory order from a Primary Court cannot ground a criminal offence
|
21 July 1986 |
|
Criminal prosecution in a family land dispute was inappropriate where ownership remained with the owner and acts may reflect honest mistake.
Criminal law – land dispute arising from clan meeting – evidentiary value of unsigned minutes – ownership confirmed by prior civil title – criminal trespass and malicious damage where honest belief may negate intent – invalid prohibitory order cannot create offence.
|
21 July 1986 |
|
Appellant’s bribery conviction affirmed on consistent sting evidence; appellate court declined to disturb concurrent factual findings.
Criminal law – Corrupt transaction – Section 3(1) Prevention of Corruption Act – sufficiency of evidence; police sting (marked notes) as evidence; corroborative witness testimony. Appellate review – second appeal – reluctance to disturb concurrent findings of fact where no question of law is raised.
|
21 July 1986 |
|
On a second appeal the Court upheld a corruption conviction, refusing to disturb concurrent factual findings where no legal issue was raised.
Criminal law – Corruption – Conviction under section 3(1) Prevention of Corruption Act 1971 – Trap operation, marked notes and physical evidence; witness testimony corroboration. Appellate procedure – Second appeal – concurrent findings of fact by trial and High Court not to be disturbed where no question of law raised.
|
21 July 1986 |
|
Concurrent factual findings on identification were upheld; appeal dismissed despite severe sentence.
Criminal law – robbery at night – identification evidence – concurrent findings of fact by trial court and High Court – appellate review of factual findings – sentence severity in armed robbery.
|
21 July 1986 |
| June 1986 |
|
|
Court upheld murder conviction where eyewitness identification was reliable and alibi was disbelieved due to implausibility and prior lies.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Reliability of eyewitness identification at night by torchlight – Sufficiency to convict. Criminal law – Alibi – Assessment and rejection where alibi is improbable and contradicted by prior lies. Evidence – Effect of inconsistent statements to police on credibility.
|
1 June 1986 |