|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2006 |
|
|
A spouse is not automatically bound by a judgment against the other; res judicata binds named parties and privies only.
Res judicata; privity of judgment; Primary Courts procedure; spouses not automatically same party; revision under Magistrates' Courts Act; right to be heard in suo motu revision.
|
14 December 2006 |
| October 2006 |
|
|
A four-year delay due to applicant's negligence does not justify extension of time to apply for leave.
Extension of time — whether sufficient reason under Rule 8 for extension to apply for leave to appeal out of time; Negligence/inadvertence by applicant or counsel — not sufficient; Inordinate delay (over four years) — ground for dismissal; Rule 43(b) — 14-day limit after High Court refusal.
|
17 October 2006 |
|
Vendor's failure to tender all contracted property bars recovery of the outstanding purchase price and specific performance.
Contract law — Sale of land and assets — Obligation to tender all contracted property; "as is where is" clause does not excuse non-existent or non-delivered contractual items; specific performance inappropriate where vendor has not performed.
|
13 October 2006 |
|
Appellant’s conviction quashed where visual identification was unreliable and he was omitted from the identification parade.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night – Conditions affecting reliability; omission to include accused in identification parade undermines evidentiary weight. Criminal law – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Suspicion insufficient for conviction. Procedure – Identification parade – failure to present accused prejudicial.
|
4 October 2006 |
|
Conviction quashed where nighttime visual identification was unreliable and reasonable doubt remained.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night – Reliability and conditions required (Waziri Amani standard); Identification parade – failure to produce accused weakens prosecution case; Corroboration – unidentifying witnesses do not supply necessary corroboration; Reasonable doubt – suspicion insufficient for conviction.
|
4 October 2006 |
|
Failure to inform the appellant of s214 C.P.A. rights vitiated the trial; proceedings quashed and retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure — Section 214 C.P.A. — Successor magistrate’s duty to inform accused of right to recall witnesses — Non‑compliance fatal where credibility hinges on demeanour; conviction unsafe; retrial ordered.
|
4 October 2006 |
|
An oral dying declaration corroborated by eyewitness and post-mortem upheld the murder conviction and death sentence.
Criminal law – dying declaration under s.34(a) Evidence Act – oral statements admissible; dying declarations require corroboration; corroboration by eyewitness identification and post-mortem; credibility and identification where witness knew accused prior to incident.
|
4 October 2006 |
|
Conviction for forcible entry quashed where violent entry was unproved, witness testimony uncorroborated and delays unexplained.
Criminal law – forcible entry (s.85 Penal Code) – requirement of violent entry – proof beyond reasonable doubt; single-witness testimony and need for corroboration; unexplained delay in reporting/arrest undermining prosecution case; irregularities in execution sale affecting credibility of related criminal charge.
|
4 October 2006 |
|
Withdrawal under section 98 does not bar later prosecution; conviction upheld on identification, exhibits and caution statement.
Criminal law – armed robbery; identification evidence and exhibits recovered from robbed vehicle; admissibility and corroborative value of caution statements; autrefois acquit – effect of withdrawal under section 98 Criminal Procedure Act; second appeal limited to points of law unless misdirection on evidence.
|
4 October 2006 |
|
Non‑compliance with s.192 and absence of s.256A transfer made the preliminary hearing and conviction void; retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure — Preliminary hearing under s.192 CPA — Mandatory requirements — Non‑compliance vitiates proceedings; Transfer under s.256A required for magistrate with extended jurisdiction to conduct plea/trial; jurisdictional defect renders proceedings null; retrial ordered.
|
4 October 2006 |
|
Lack of a s256A transfer rendered the preliminary hearing void, vitiating proceedings and prompting quash of conviction and retrial.
Criminal procedure — Sections 192 and 256A Criminal Procedure Act — transfer to magistrate exercising extended jurisdiction — jurisdictional defect — preliminary hearing nullity — non-compliance with mandatory procedure vitiates proceedings — conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
|
4 October 2006 |
|
An order setting aside an ex parte decree under Order IX, r.13 C.P.C. is not appealable; the appeal was struck out with costs.
Civil procedure — Order IX, r.13 C.P.C. — setting aside ex parte decree — non-appealable; Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.5(1) subject to other written law; appeal competence; procedural requirement — judge-signed leave order (rule 89(1)(i) Rules of the Court).
|
4 October 2006 |
|
An appeal from a Primary Court without the High Court’s certificate on a point of law is incompetent and is struck out.
Appeals from Primary Courts — third appeals to the Court of Appeal — mandatory High Court certificate that a point of law is involved (Appellate Jurisdiction Act / Part III(c) Magistrates' Courts Act) — absence of certificate renders appeal incompetent — appeal struck out; leave to apply for extension and certificate to reinstitute appeal out of time.
|
4 October 2006 |
|
An appeal is incompetent where the record contains a decree not validly signed by the trial judge or his successor.
Civil procedure — Decree — Order XX rule 7 requires trial judge/magistrate to sign decree — Order XX rule 8 allows successor judge to sign if original judge vacated office — Registrar lacks power to sign decree — Rule 89(1)(h) requires decree in record of appeal — Invalid decree renders appeal incompetent.
|
4 October 2006 |
|
Appellants’ convictions quashed: unreliable night identification and lack of causation precluded application of common intention.
Criminal law – Identification evidence at night – need to exclude all possibilities of mistaken identity; Caution in reliance on generalized testimony. Causation – post-mortem showing head injury inconsistent with alleged assaults to non-fatal parts; inability to link accused’s acts to death. Common intention – requires proper identification and causation. Acquittal where lingering doubts remain.
|
4 October 2006 |
| June 2006 |
|
|
Absent positive identification, circumstantial presence and possession cannot sustain a robbery conviction.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Presence near scene and possession of item – Suspicion insufficient for conviction – Benefit of doubt.
|
28 June 2006 |