|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1992 |
|
Criminal law - Theft - Appellant not having exclusive access to stolen items - Whether grave suspicion against appellant can ground a conviction. Evidence - Theft - Appellant not having exclusive access to stolen items - Grave suspicion against appellant - Whether such suspicion can found a conviction. |
14 December 1992 |
| September 1992 |
|
Administration of Estates - Grant of probate - Conditions for grant - Necessity of a will |
21 September 1992 |
Court of Appeal Rules Service - Whether Rule 46(3) requires service of a copy of the order of the High Court upon the respondent - Non-applicability of Rule 82(2) to applications for leave - whether copy ruling means a copy of the order of the High Court - Rule 46(3) |
17 September 1992 |
| May 1992 |
|
|
Appeal dismissed for failure to serve required notice and to lodge the memorandum of appeal within the prescribed time.
Criminal appeal — Procedural compliance — Court of Appeal Rules 1979 (Rules 61(2), 63, 65) — Service of notice of appeal — Timely lodging of memorandum of appeal — Dismissal under Rule 65(5) — Extension of time via Rules 45, 46 and Rule 8.
|
13 May 1992 |
Civil Practice and Procedure - Jurisdiction of High Court - Suits concern immovable property which is land not held on a Government lease or a Right of Occupancy granted under the Land Ordinance |
13 May 1992 |
Evidence - Witnesses contradicting themselves on vital details - Whether credible. Evidence - Bias - All witnesses from a village hostile to that from which the accused comes -Inconsistency in evidence given by witnesses - Fears of bias must be dispelled. Evidence - Identification - Witnesses contradicting themselves - E Whether reliable. |
13 May 1992 |
|
|
13 May 1992 |
|
High Court proceedings in respect of certain movable-property matters are a nullity under s.63(1); fresh proceedings must be commenced in the proper court.
Jurisdiction — High Court’s lack of original jurisdiction under section 63(1) Magistrates’ Courts Act 1984 — civil proceedings in respect of movable property — proceedings instituted in wrong court are nullity — fresh proceedings to be instituted in proper court — no order as to costs.
|
13 May 1992 |
|
High Court lacks original jurisdiction over immovable-property suits outside s.63(1) exceptions; such proceedings are a nullity.
Jurisdiction – High Court – Original jurisdiction – Limitation under s.63(1) Magistrates' Courts Act 1984 – Immovable property not on Government lease or right of occupancy – proceedings outside statutory exceptions are not maintainable in High Court and are a nullity.
|
13 May 1992 |
Evidence - Confession - Retracted confession - Need for corroboration. Evidence - Identification - By a single person - Need for corroboration. Evidence - Identification - Under horrifying situation - Whether reliable. |
13 May 1992 |
Criminal Law-Murder -self defence wheter killing an suspicion one has been poisoned constitutes self defence |
13 May 1992 |
Administration of Estates - Probate and Administration - Subordinate court discovers after hearing application that it has no jurisdiction - Moves High Court to exercise revisional powers - High Court sets aside decision of subordinate court- Proceeds to hear the application though no fresh application was filed - Whether irregular. Civil Practice and Procedure - Court ofAppeal Rules - High Court has exercised original jurisdiction - Whether leave must be sought and obtained in order to appeal to the Court ofAppeal. |
13 May 1992 |
|
Conviction quashed where inconsistent eyewitness evidence and inter-village hostility made the prosecution case unsafe.
Criminal law – Malicious damage to property (s.326(1) Penal Code) – Credibility of eyewitnesses – Material contradictions between prosecution witnesses – Inter-village hostility and risk of biased testimony – Unsafe conviction quashed.
|
13 May 1992 |
Administration of Estates - Probate and Administration - Annulment of grant of letters of administration, Concealment of letter of administration granted by lower court, Effect of such concealment.Civil Practice and Procedure - Revisional powers - Suo moto - When exercisable |
13 May 1992 |
|
Whether the High Court properly exercised suo moto revision and addressed alleged fraud and non‑compliance in probate proceedings.
Probate and administration — validity of letters of administration — effect of non‑compliance with Rule 32 (affidavit), Rule 71 (consent) and section 49 (fraud) of the Probate and Administration Ordinance — duty not to mislead the court — High Court’s revision powers and limits — procedural fairness in challenges to grants of administration.
|
13 May 1992 |
Criminal law - Murder - Provocation - Caused by words. Evidence - Provocation - Seemingly innocent words - When can be provocative |
13 May 1992 |
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentencing - Mitigation - Conviction and plea of guilty - In remand for five years and first offender - Whether sentence of 4 years imprisonment proper. |
13 May 1992 |
|
Appeal raises admissibility of police statements, witness credibility and whether self‑defence negates murder conviction.
Criminal law – Murder – Plea of self‑defence; Evidence – Admissibility and weight of police statements (PF3) versus in‑court testimony; Witness credibility and possible bias; Identification of perpetrator where co‑accused acquitted.
|
13 May 1992 |
| January 1992 |
|
|
|
1 January 1992 |
|
Ministerial consent requirement to sue the State (s.6) violates constitutional access to courts and separation of powers.
Government Proceedings Act s.6 — ministerial fiat/consent to sue — access to courts — right to fair hearing — separation of powers — absence of procedural safeguards — constitutionality.
|
1 January 1992 |
|
Unexplained recent possession of stolen, blood-stained items and weapons can sustain convictions for murders during a robbery.
Criminal law – Murder committed in course of robbery – Common design to rob – Unexplained recent possession of stolen goods (blood-stained) and possession of blood-stained weapons as strong inferential/corroborative evidence of participation in murder. Presumptive inference from unexplained possession of recently stolen property – may extend to connected aggravated offences. Sentencing – discretion as to which count to pronounce sentence on where multiple convictions attract same penalty.
|
1 January 1992 |