|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| August 1990 |
|
|
Extension of time to lodge appeal refused where appellant failed to give sufficient reasons for inordinate delay.
Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules: Rule 83(1) (60‑day limit to lodge appeal) and Rule 8 (extension of time); notice of appeal initiating proceedings; proper procedure to oppose extension (counter‑affidavit vs strike‑out application); inordinate delay and insufficient explanation for extension of time.
|
23 August 1990 |
|
Omission by lay members to take statutory oath was irregular but not fatal; failure to comply with s.16 duties vitiated the trial.
Criminal procedure – Economic and Organized Crime Control Act – requirement for lay members to take oath (s.7) – omission an irregularity but not necessarily fatal; analogy to Official Oaths Act (s.13). Criminal procedure – duty of trial judge to sum up to lay members and to require their opinions – non-compliance with s.16 (Amendment) is fatal and vitiates trial. Procedural nullity – effect of statutory non-compliance – when retrial should be ordered.
|
17 August 1990 |
|
High Court improperly exercised revisional jurisdiction; review of magistrate’s judgment belonged in the magistrate’s court.
Civil procedure – Review under Order XLIII CPC – Proper forum for review is the subordinate court that gave the decree; Revision under section 79 CPC – High Court may call records only where subordinate court exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally/with material irregularity – Post-judgment correspondence not amounting to new evidence that vitiates magistrate’s jurisdiction – Costs: successful party may be deprived of costs where its conduct contributed to litigation.
|
17 August 1990 |
|
Refusal to adjourn a premature certiorari application without reasons is an improper exercise of judicial discretion.
Administrative law — Judicial review — Leave to apply for certiorari — Premature applications — Statutory adjournment provision — Discretion must be exercised judicially with reasons — Intituling of proceedings.
|
17 August 1990 |
|
Provocation reduced the offence to manslaughter; appellate court upheld conviction and six-year sentence.
Criminal law – Provocation – When provocative conduct reduces murder to manslaughter – Evaluation of witness credibility (including child witness) – Appellate review of trial judge’s findings – Sentence review.
|
6 August 1990 |
|
Appellant's 15-year manslaughter sentence upheld; parental-chastisement and intoxication defences rejected; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Manslaughter – Sentence severity – appellate interference only where wrong principle applied, relevant considerations ignored, or manifest excess causing miscarriage of justice. Defences – parental chastisement and intoxication rejected where conduct was savage and appellant fled. Appeal – plea of mercy refused in absence of mitigating circumstances.
|
2 August 1990 |
|
An appellate court reduces an excessive 20-year manslaughter sentence to three years for a father's fatal chastisement of his child.
Criminal law - Manslaughter; sentencing; manifestly excessive sentence; parental chastisement; causation where death follows a fall rather than direct blows.
|
2 August 1990 |
|
Murder convictions quashed because identification evidence was unreliable and corroboration unsatisfactory.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – requirement that identification be "absolutely watertight" before conviction on visual ID alone; adverse effect of darkness, masks and panic. Evidence – Contradictory testimony and conflicts between police statements and court evidence undermine credibility. Corroboration – a witness who requires corroboration cannot properly corroborate another witness on material particulars. Procedure – importance of identification parade where recognition is disputed; failure to hold one may render conviction unsafe. Criminal appeal – convictions quashed where identification evidence found unsafe.
|
2 August 1990 |
|
Court of Appeal rules on corporate resolutions do not bar High Court leave applications signed by a principal officer.
Appeal procedure – corporate representation – Rule 28(3) Court of Appeal Rules applies to appearances before the Court of Appeal only; High Court leave applications governed by High Court practice and Civil Procedure Code – principal officer may sign/verify without enabling resolution – authenticity of corporate resolution and minutes.
|
2 August 1990 |
|
Appellant's nine-year manslaughter sentence reduced to immediate release due to grave provocation and mitigating factors.
Criminal law – Manslaughter – Sentence – Whether nine years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive – Provocation and mitigation (single kick, no weapon, guilty plea, remorse, first offender, remand) justify reduction.
|
2 August 1990 |
| July 1990 |
|
|
Reported
Civil Practice and Procedure - Jurisdiction of the Courts - Civil proceedings in respect of immovable property held under customary law - Whether High Court has jurisdiction - Section 2(1) of the Judicature and Application of Laws Ordinance and s. 63(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1984
Courts-Jurisdiction ofthe High Court-Power ofthe High Court to grant leave for proceedings to commence in a court other than the primary court - Whether High Court may order proceedings to commence in itself- Section 63(1) ofthe Magistrates' Courts Act 1984
Civil Practice and Procedure - Local Government - Suits against local government authorities -Statutory requirement of one month notice before suing an urban authority - Effect ofnon compliance - Section 97(1) of the Local Government (Urban Authorities) Act 1982 |
30 July 1990 |
| May 1990 |
|
|
Damages for trespass require proof of the particular land and loss; an undefined tribunal award cannot sustain a damages award.
Land law – trespass and damages – plaintiff’s pleaded area reduced by tribunal – award of part of communal field without defined boundaries – inability to prove location and extent of trespass or destroyed crops – damages unsustainable.
|
30 May 1990 |
|
Appeals against convictions from a subordinate court lie to the High Court; failure to lodge memoranda leads to dismissal.
Criminal procedure – Appeals – Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal vs High Court where conviction is by subordinate court – Committal for sentence under section 171 Criminal Procedure Act – Appealability of High Court-imposed sentence exceeding committing court's power – Failure to lodge memorandum of appeal under Rule 65(1) – Rule 65(5) restoration.
|
13 May 1990 |
| March 1990 |
|
|
Conviction based on weak circumstantial evidence and judicial misdirection set aside; prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – circumstantial evidence – sufficiency of proof beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof remains on prosecution – accused’s falsehoods/inconsistencies cannot substitute for independent proof – judicial misdirection; contaminated exhibits (oil) affecting forensic reliability.
|
13 March 1990 |
|
Appeals against convictions from a subordinate magistrate lie to the High Court; appeals against committal sentences to the Court of Appeal are limited and required proper memoranda.
Appellate jurisdiction – appeals from subordinate courts – convictions entered by Resident Magistrate lie to High Court, not Court of Appeal (Criminal Procedure Act s35). Committal for sentence (s171 Criminal Procedure Act) – appeals against sentences imposed by High Court on committals lie to Court of Appeal only where sentence exceeds committing court’s power. Appellate Jurisdiction Act s6(6) – no appeal to Court of Appeal where High Court imposes a sentence which the committing court had power to impose. Court of Appeal Rules r.65(1),(5) – requirement to lodge memorandum of appeal and remedy of restoration where memorandum not lodged within time.
|
13 March 1990 |
|
Appeals against convictions from a Resident Magistrate lie to the High Court; failure to file a memorandum warrants dismissal.
Criminal procedure – jurisdiction – appeals from subordinate (Resident) Magistrate's Court – such appeals lie to the High Court, not to Court of Appeal. Criminal procedure – committal under section 171 – effect on appeal route against sentence imposed by High Court. Appeals – failure to lodge memorandum of appeal within time – Rule 65(1) and court’s discretion under Rule 65(5).
|
13 March 1990 |
|
An appeal from a primary court without a High Court certificate and timely notice is incompetent and is struck out.
Appellate procedure — compliance with Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 61, Rule 65) — notice of appeal and lodging memorandum of appeal time limits; Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.5(2)(c) — requirement of High Court certificate where appeal originates from primary court; Court’s discretion (Rule 3/Rule 44) — not available to cure statutory/mandatory non-compliance in such appeals.
|
13 March 1990 |
|
Appeal against murder conviction dismissed: eyewitness identification and trial judge’s rejection of alibi were upheld.
Criminal law – Murder – identification evidence – reliability of eyewitness identification and evaluation of credibility. Criminal law – Defence of alibi – whether alibi is reasonably possibly true and when trial court may reject it. Appeal – appellate review of findings of fact and credibility – deference to trial judge where findings are supported by evidence.
|
13 March 1990 |
|
Omission to re‑examine defence witnesses does not entail failure of justice where conviction is otherwise safely supported.
Criminal law – Appeal – Procedural irregularity – Omission in record to show re‑examination of defence witnesses – Whether omission amounted to failure of justice. Evidence – Identification evidence – Credibility of prosecution witnesses vs contradictions in defence evidence. Fair trial – Right to re‑examine witnesses – Prejudice and safety of conviction.
|
13 March 1990 |
|
Omission to permit re‑examination did not amount to denial of fair trial where conviction rested on credible identification evidence.
Criminal procedure — Re‑examination — Whether omission to allow re‑examination of defence witnesses constitutes denial of fair trial — Omission not fatal where conviction rests on credible evidence given in chief and identification evidence. Evidence — Identification — Reliability of identification evidence and weight of prosecution witnesses. Appeals — Appellate review of alleged procedural omission — requirement of showing prejudice or failure of justice.
|
13 March 1990 |
|
Conviction for murder upheld: self-defence and private-arrest defences rejected; transferred malice and corroborated dying declaration sustain conviction.
• Criminal law – murder – mistaken identity and transferred malice.• Criminal law – self-defence – requirement of imminent threat and proportionality.• Criminal procedure – private arrest (s.16(2)) and statutory protection (s.22) – requirement of honest and reasonable belief.• Evidence – assessment of witness contradictions, use of corroboration and representative witness evidence.• Evidence – dying declaration (oral) and corroboration.
|
13 March 1990 |
|
Appellants lawfully occupying a farm were wrongfully dispossessed; sale agreement was inoperative but appellants entitled to possession and damages.
Land law — Regulation 3 (1948 Land Regulations) — Inoperative sale agreements lacking Director’s approval; possession/licence v. title; public officer’s unlawful dispossession; remedies — restitution of possession, compensatory damages; standard of proof for fraud.
|
2 March 1990 |
| February 1990 |
|
|
Whether the appeal was incompetent for failure to comply with Court of Appeal Rules' time limits.
Criminal appeal — appellate procedure — preliminary objection to competency for non-compliance with Court of Appeal Rules — time limits for lodging memorandum and notice of appeal — requirement for extension of time.
|
27 February 1990 |