|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2004 |
|
|
Trial court erred by not ordering psychiatric examination when the appellant's conduct and assessors' inquiries raised doubt about sanity.
Criminal law – Insanity – statutory duty to raise insanity at plea (s219 Criminal Procedure Act) – court’s duty to order medical examination if insanity appears during trial (s220) – insanity may be inferred from conduct and circumstances – assessors’ queries may signal need for psychiatric inquiry.
|
5 November 2004 |
|
Doctrine of recent possession and statutory minimum sentence upheld where appellants had constructive possession and failed to give alibi notice.
Criminal law – robbery – doctrine of recent possession – constructive possession where accused left stolen property with third party for repairs; Criminal procedure – alibi – requirement to give notice and particulars under s.194(4)&(5) – failure justifies discounting alibi; Sentencing – enhancement to statutory minimum under Minimum Sentences Act upheld.
|
5 November 2004 |
|
The applicant's identification at night was held reliable and contradictions were insufficient to overturn conviction and sentence.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification evidence at night – Waziri Amani guidelines – prior acquaintance, lighting and duration of observation. Evidence – Credibility and contradictions – minor inconsistencies not necessarily fatal where other evidence is strong. Sentencing – Mandatory minimum sentence under the Minimum Sentences Act.
|
4 November 2004 |
| October 2004 |
|
|
Conviction based on weak, unparticularised identification cannot stand; appeal allowed, conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Standards for identification at the scene; corroboration – Weak, unparticularised identification cannot support conviction; Minimum Sentences Act – sentence illegality (twenty years vs statutory minima).
|
27 October 2004 |
|
Insufficient and vague identification evidence undermined the robbery conviction; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Adequacy of identification by facial appearance – Need for particulars (prior acquaintance, clothing, lighting) – Corroboration of complainant – Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt; Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act amendments and illegality of a 20‑year term in circumstances noted.
|
27 October 2004 |
|
Reported
A Registrar's Rule 83(1) certificate may be set aside if it incorrectly certifies delivery of records, as the presumption of regularity is rebuttable.
Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules r.83(1) – Certificate of delay – Registrar's certificate susceptible to challenge where delivery of record is not formally evidenced; presumption of regularity under Evidence Act s.122 is rebuttable. Requirement of formal delivery (including payment of fees and official notification) before exclusion of time for appeal is certified.
|
27 October 2004 |
|
The applicant's non‑advocate appearance contravened court rules and led to the motion being struck out with costs.
Civil procedure – Representation – Court of Appeal – Rule 28(1) Court Rules: parties may appear in person or by advocate; non‑advocate cannot appear as "attorney". Procedural compliance – Improper representation – Consequence: striking out of notice of motion and costs. Stay of execution – application dismissed for procedural irregularity in representation.
|
27 October 2004 |
|
Primary Court and Land Tribunal had concurrent jurisdiction; Court of Appeal ordered High Court to decide appeal on merits.
Land law – concurrent jurisdiction of Primary Courts and Customary Land Tribunals in customary land/trespass disputes; Duplicity of proceedings – forum should withdraw or be struck out, but concurrent filing does not automatically oust Primary Court jurisdiction; Administrative communication by Tribunal – effect of Tribunal vacating jurisdiction; Appellate powers – Court of Appeal stepping into High Court under s.4(2) to grant substantive relief.
|
27 October 2004 |
|
Whether a Primary Court retains jurisdiction over a customary land dispute where the same matter is filed at a Land Tribunal.
Land law – customary land disputes – concurrent jurisdiction of Primary Courts and Customary Land Tribunals under the Customary Leaseholds (Enfranchisement) Act, 1968. Civil procedure – duplicity of suits – where identical dispute is before two forums one must cease jurisdiction; tribunal’s vacating of jurisdiction and striking out. Appellate jurisdiction – exercise of appellate court’s authority and equitable powers to order procedural remedies under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
|
27 October 2004 |
|
Joining a respondent declared a specified public corporation without statutory leave is jurisdictionally improper and void.
Public corporations – Declaration as specified corporation – Effect of s.43 Public Corporations Act – engagement of Bankruptcy Ordinance; Bankruptcy Ordinance s.9 – requirement of court leave before proceeding against specified corporation’s property; Civil procedure – preliminary objection under Rule 100 to challenge jurisdictional joinder; Consent cannot cure statutory jurisdictional requirement; Appellate revisional jurisdiction – s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – power to quash illegal High Court proceedings; Costs – no costs where parties failed to draw jurisdictional bar to court’s attention.
|
27 October 2004 |
|
Primary Court had jurisdiction; assessors need not give written opinions; appellate court rightly upheld concurrent factual findings.
Magistrates’ Courts Act – Primary Court jurisdiction over disputes concerning immovable property; Primary Courts (Judgment) Rules – role of assessors as members of the court and no requirement for separate written opinions; Appellate review – deference to concurrent findings of fact by trial and first appellate courts.
|
27 October 2004 |
|
Reported
Primary Court had jurisdiction; assessors need not give written opinions; second appeal dismissed for lack of valid point of law.
Jurisdiction – Primary Courts – disputes over immovable customary land located within court’s local jurisdiction – Magistrates Courts Act and Fourth Schedule. Assessors – role in Primary Courts – consultation and signature of judgment; no requirement to give separate or recorded opinions (Primary Courts (Judgment of Court) Rules r.3). Appeals – scope of second (further) appeal – reluctance to disturb concurrent findings of fact absent a valid point of law.
|
27 October 2004 |
|
Reported
The appellant's conviction was quashed due to unsafe identification; he was ordered released.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – sufficiency of lighting and circumstances – extinguished lamp and positioning of witnesses – delay in arrest – suspicion insufficient for conviction – benefit of doubt.
|
27 October 2004 |
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Identification - Case depending on Identification of accused - Such identification must be watertight.
Evidence — Grave suspicion against an accused — Whether such suspicion may ground a conviction. |
27 October 2004 |
|
Conviction unsafe where prosecution failed to prove the alleged victim's death beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law — proof of death in homicide prosecution; requirement that trial judge make categorical finding of death; reliance on police inference insufficient; credibility and contradiction of sole eyewitness; trial without legal representation — retrial considerations; doubts resolved in favour of accused.
|
27 October 2004 |
|
Reported
Non-confirmation of a probationary secondment is not a termination and does not automatically entitle the employee to hearing or reasons.
Employment law – secondment vs departmental transfer – Establishment Circular No.7 of 1995 clarifying secondment and uhamisho wa moja kwa moja Labour/employment – probationary engagement – non-confirmation after probation is not equivalent to termination Administrative law – procedural fairness – entitlement to hearing and reasons in probation/non-confirmation context Civil procedure – appellate re-appraisal and revision of evidence under Rule 34(1) and section 4(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act Pleadings and trial – court may decide issues that were argued and pleaded even if not formally framed as issues
|
27 October 2004 |
|
Reported
Civil Practice and Procedure -Issues — Framed issues — Issue not framed at the commencement of the hearing but pleaded in the plaint and evidence adduced on it in court - Whether court should not make decision on it.
Natural Justice - Right to be heard - Appellant engaged on secondment to the respondent — Respondent refuses to confirm the appellant’s engagement at the end of the secondment period - Whether the appellant had a right to be heard before the refusal. |
27 October 2004 |
|
An application citing a multi-faceted rule without specifying the exact sub-rule is incompetent and will be struck out; each party bears own costs.
Procedure — Court Rules — Requirement to specify the exact sub-rule relied upon when invoking a multi-faceted rule (Rule 9) — Failure to cite specific provision renders a notice of motion incompetent; court may raise competence suo motu; costs where issue raised by court.
|
27 October 2004 |
|
An appeal filed before delivery of the judge's reasons is premature; appeal struck out with costs.
Civil procedure — meaning of "judgment" under section 3 CPC and Order XX R.4 — reserved reasons do not constitute a judgment; appeals filed before delivery of reasons are premature — decree and memorandum must accord with the true judgment — incomplete record (Rule 89(1)(k)) may require supplementation (Rule 92).
|
27 October 2004 |
|
A Registrar's Rule 83(1) delay certificate is rebuttable and may be struck out if documents were not officially supplied.
Civil procedure – Rule 83(1) Court of Appeal Rules – Registrar's certificate excluding time for obtaining proceedings – must reflect official delivery and compliance with fees. Evidence Act s.122 – presumption of regularity of official acts – rebuttable where certificate shown to be incorrect. Appeals – computation of time – informal or clandestine obtaining of records does not validate exclusion period under Rule 83(1). Strict compliance required for certificates of delay; false or misleading certificates may be set aside.
|
27 October 2004 |
|
A Registrar's Rule 83(1) certificate is rebuttable; informal retrieval of records without official delivery cannot exclude time.
Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules r.83(1) – Certificate of Delay – Registrar's certificate is vital but not beyond question; may be challenged if incorrect. Evidence Act s.122 – presumption of regularity of official acts is rebuttable. Requirement of official delivery/payment of court fees before exclusion of time under r.83(1). Informal obtaining of court records does not satisfy r.83(1).
|
27 October 2004 |
|
An appeal was struck out for failure to obtain statutory leave to appeal despite a prior time-extension order.
Appellate procedure – requirement of leave under s.5(1)(c) Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979 – Court rules cannot override statutory leave requirement – effect of prior extension to institute fresh appeal – service of preliminary objection.
|
27 October 2004 |
|
An improperly lodged withdrawal notice without all parties' consent mandates dismissal with costs under Rule 95.
Civil procedure – Withdrawal of appeal – Rule 95(1), (3) and (4) Court Rules 1979 – Proper lodging of notice in registry; consent required to strike out; non-consent leads to dismissal with costs unless Court orders otherwise on timely application.
|
24 October 2004 |
|
Adjournments beyond 60 days without certificate do not automatically void trial; child’s unsworn evidence corroborated to sustain conviction.
Criminal procedure – section 225(4) & (5) CPA 1985 – adjournments beyond 60 days without certificate – breach does not automatically vitiate trial absent prejudice. Evidence – section 127 Evidence Act 1967 – child witness of tender years, voire dire omission renders evidence unsworn and requiring corroboration. Appellate review – first appellate court may re-evaluate evidence where trial court misdirected or plainly went wrong. Corroboration of unsworn child evidence by eyewitness supports conviction for theft.
|
5 October 2004 |
|
Adjournment certificate breach without shown prejudice does not vitiate trial; child witness corroborated and conviction upheld.
Criminal procedure – section 225(4) & (5) Criminal Procedure Act – adjournments beyond 60 days without certificate do not automatically vitiate trial; prejudice required; Evidence – section 127 Evidence Act – child witness/voirdire omission renders evidence unsworn and in need of corroboration; appellate review – first appellate court entitled to re-evaluate evidence where trial court misdirected itself.
|
5 October 2004 |
|
Adjournment beyond 60 days without certificate is not fatal absent prejudice; child’s unsworn evidence corroborated supports conviction.
Criminal procedure – section 225(4)–(5) Criminal Procedure Act 1985 – adjournments beyond 60 days without certificate – breach not automatically vitiating absent prejudice. Appeal procedure – appellate re‑evaluation of evidence – first appellate court may reassess credibility where trial court misdirected or failed to appreciate evidence. Evidence – section 127 Evidence Act 1967 – voire dire for child witnesses of tender years; unsworn child evidence requires corroboration under s.127(2). Evidence – corroboration by eyewitness sufficient to uphold unsworn child testimony in theft prosecution.
|
5 October 2004 |
|
Reported
Adjournments beyond 60 days without certificate do not automatically void trial; child evidence unsworn requires corroboration.
Criminal procedure – adjournments – section 225(4) & (5) Criminal Procedure Act 1985 – breach does not automatically vitiate trial absent prejudice. Evidence – child witness – section 127 Evidence Act 1967 – voir dire omission; unsworn evidence admissible but requires corroboration. Appellate review – first appeal – re-evaluation of evidence where trial court misdirected or plainly went wrong. Corroboration – independent eyewitness corroboration of child witness supports conviction.
|
5 October 2004 |
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Preliminary hearing — Whether failure to hold a preliminary hearing vitiates proceedings in a case - Section 192 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1985 and rule 3 of the Accelerated Trial and Disposal of Cases Rules 1988. |
5 October 2004 |
|
Conviction upheld where a sole eye-witness gave reliable visual identification under favourable conditions; alibi unsupported.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification under favourable conditions; single witness evidence; rule of practice on corroboration; alibi improperly raised; delay in arrest not fatal to identification.
|
5 October 2004 |
|
Reported
A later, harsher statutory sentence cannot be applied retroactively; appellant entitled to penalty in force at time of offence.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Non-retrospectivity of penal statutes; Interpretation of Laws Act s.49 – Minimum Sentences Act amendments – Illegal sentence correction and substitution; consideration of time served.
|
4 October 2004 |
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure — Sentencing — Sentence for armed robbery — Appellant condemned to a sentence higher than the law provided when the offence was committed - Sentence imposed is unlawful.
Statute - Retrospective Effect — Penal statute amended to enhance sentence a prescribed for armed robbery - Whether the enhanced sentence may apply to offence committed before the amendment - Section 5 of the Minimum Sentences Act 1972 as amended, section 49 of the Interpretation of Laws and General Clauses Act 1972, and article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution. |
4 October 2004 |
|
Court held amended harsher minimum sentence inapplicable retroactively and substituted the penalty prevailing at time of offence.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Application of amended minimum sentences where offence committed before amendment; Interpretation of Laws Act s.49 – non‑retroactivity of increased penalties; subordinate courts’ sentencing limits; rectification of illegal sentence.
|
4 October 2004 |
|
Issue estoppel requires an identical, conclusively decided issue in prior proceedings; here no prior finding on possession was made, so appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – issue estoppel / res judicata – applicability in criminal proceedings – requires same parties, identical issue and a prior conclusive judicial determination. Criminal law – unlawful possession of firearm – necessity of a prior finding of possession before issue estoppel can operate. Evidence – recent possession principle and sufficiency of proof to connect accused with stolen firearm.
|
4 October 2004 |
| July 2004 |
|
|
Reported
A notice of appeal filed before the judge’s written reasons is premature when those reasons constitute the judgment.
Civil procedure – Meaning of 'judgment' under s.3 Civil Procedure Code and Order XX r.4; Notice of Appeal – prematurity where filed before written reasons constituting the judgment; Decree and memorandum of appeal must agree with the judgment; Record of appeal – completeness, Rule 89(1)(k) and supplementary record under Rule 92.
|
27 July 2004 |
| June 2004 |
|
|
A magistrate’s judgment that produces execution finally determines the suit; revision is therefore not barred.
Civil procedure — Revision — Whether interlocutory/preliminary order bars revision — effect of a judgment followed by execution. Magistrates' Courts Act s.43(2) and Civil Procedure Code s.79 (amendment) — scope of prohibition on revision. Execution — Attachment of property and rights of third parties; remedy by objection in trial court. Evidence — Sufficiency of affidavit where some paragraphs alleged not to be within deponent's knowledge.
|
25 June 2004 |
| January 2004 |
|
|
Known victims’ close-range torchlit identification upheld convictions despite inadequate possession evidence.
Criminal law – Visual identification – Reliability where witnesses knew accused prior to incident and observed at close range with torch/bicycle lamp. Criminal law – Armed robbery and assault – Sufficiency of identification evidence to sustain conviction. Evidence – Possession of allegedly stolen property – Inadequate where serial number/discrepancy undermines linkage.
|
1 January 2004 |