|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2014 |
|
|
Section 4(3) applies only to proceedings still before the High Court; application for revision struck out.
Appellate procedure — Revisional jurisdiction under s.4(3) Appellate Jurisdiction Act — "Before the High Court" means proceedings still under the High Court's cognisance; s.4(3) inapplicable once appeal lodged — s.4(2) revisional powers exercisable by the Court during appeal; parties may draw attention to illegality.
|
3 November 2014 |
|
High Court's summary rejection of a certificate application for failure to annex the decision was irregular; order quashed and rehearing directed.
Appellate procedure – Certification of point of law under s.5(2)(c) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Applicability of rule 49(3) – Irregularity of summary rejection for failure to annex decision; Revisionary jurisdiction – s.4(3) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Power to quash and restore applications; Procedural fairness – rehearing by another High Court Judge.
|
3 November 2014 |
|
A Rule 65 revision was incompetent; revisional jurisdiction lies under section 4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
Civil procedure – Competence of applications – Whether a revision brought under Rule 65 of the Court of Appeal Rules is competent where revisional jurisdiction is under section 4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. Appellate procedure – Remedy after refusal of leave by High Court – requirement to apply afresh for leave (and for extension of time if necessary). Representation – treatment of unrepresented/indigent applicants and availability of legal aid options.
|
3 November 2014 |
|
Illegally obtained confession and defective chain of custody made recent-possession inference and murder conviction unsafe.
Criminal law — Confession — Admissibility — Cautioned statement recorded outside statutory basic period (s.50 CPA) without extension (s.51) — Illegally obtained confession excluded; Identification — Standards under Waziri Amani — Unreliable identification at night; Doctrine of recent possession — Requires cogent proof that items possessed are those stolen and a proper chain of custody — Absence of custody trail and witness contradictions may permit tampering; Burden and standard of proof — Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
3 November 2014 |
| October 2014 |
|
|
Whether a Notice of Appeal should be struck out where respondents concede and failed to obtain leave to appeal.
Civil procedure – striking out Notice of Appeal – application under Rule 89(2) – concession by respondents’ counsel at hearing – failure to apply for leave to appeal in land matter – costs awarded to successful applicant.
|
31 October 2014 |
|
Issue estoppel precluded reuse of previously rejected visual identification; medical causation was inconclusive, so murder convictions quashed.
Criminal law — Issue estoppel bars relitigation of a factual issue previously decided in favour of the accused; visual identification — when prior appellate finding precludes re‑admission of same identification evidence; Double jeopardy — distinct from issue estoppel and does not prevent prosecution for a different offence arising from same transaction; Evidence — post‑mortem must exclude natural causes to establish death was unlawful.
|
31 October 2014 |
|
Court quashed High Court's summary rejection of a certificate application and restored the application for rehearing by another judge.
Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.5(2)(c) – certificate on point(s) of law – distinction from leave to appeal. Court of Appeal Rules 2009 r.49(3) – annexure requirement – scope and applicability. Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(3) – power to examine and revise High Court orders. Procedural irregularity – summary rejection quashed; application restored and remitted for rehearing.
|
31 October 2014 |
|
Appeal struck out as time-barred because the applicant failed to show the request for proceedings was copied to the respondent.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Time limit for instituting appeal – Rule 90(1) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – proviso and Rule 90(2) require written application for copies to be copied to and served on respondent. Civil procedure – Preliminary objections – Notice and service – Rule 107(1) requirements for service of notice of preliminary objection. Appeals – Record of appeal – missing pages – not determinative where appeal is time-barred. Jurisdiction – Court will raise and determine sua sponte jurisdictional defects (time bar).
|
30 October 2014 |
|
Appeal struck out as time‑barred because request for trial copies was not shown to be copied to the respondent.
Court of Appeal rules — time limits for instituting appeal — Rule 90(1) and (2) — requirement that application for copy of proceedings be in writing and a copy served on respondent — effect of non-compliance; preliminary objection procedure — Rule 107(1) — service within three clear days; defective record — missing page not necessarily fatal.
|
30 October 2014 |
|
Non‑compliance with Rule 68’s mandatory notice particulars renders an appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Court of Appeal Rules r.68 — Mandatory contents of a notice of appeal — Correct date of judgment, High Court judge and case number, and nature of conviction required — Defective notice renders appeal incompetent — Indulgence to unrepresented appellants insufficient to cure defects.
|
29 October 2014 |
|
Non‑compliance with Rule 68(1)–(2) renders a notice of appeal incurably defective and the appeal incompetent.
Criminal appeal — Preliminary objection — Non‑compliance with Rule 68(1)–(2) — Notice of appeal must state correct judgment date, High Court judge and case number, and nature of conviction — Errors (wrong offence, wrong date, wrong case number) render notice incurably defective — appeal struck out.
|
28 October 2014 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause for extension of time; ignorance of law not a ground; application dismissed.
Civil procedure — Extension of time under rule 10 — Requirement to show good cause — Grounds for substantive stay (rule 11(2)) not a substitute for good cause — Ignorance of law not sufficient.
|
28 October 2014 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause for extension of time; ignorance of law is not sufficient; application dismissed.
Civil procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – applicant must show good cause; mere threat of execution better addressed by substantive stay under Rule 11(2). Ignorance of law is not good cause for extension of time. Affidavit must explain reasons for delay to justify exercise of discretionary extension.
|
28 October 2014 |
|
A charge omitting the person targeted by violence in a robbery allegation is fatally defective and warrants quashing and remittal.
Criminal procedure – charge sheet particulars – section 132 CPA – essential ingredients of robbery must be disclosed, including the person against whom violence/threat is used. Robbery (Penal Code ss. 285, 286) – element of actual violence or threat to a person – must be specifically pleaded. Cure of defects – section 388(1) CPA cannot cure omission of an essential ingredient leading to failure of justice. Conviction formalities – conviction under general provision (s.235 CPA) invalid where accused charged under specific substantive offence. Appellate jurisdiction – Court of Appeal may, under s.4(2) AJA, quash proceedings and remit to DPP for further action.
|
27 October 2014 |
|
Non‑supply of High Court records is good cause to extend time for filing revisional proceedings.
Civil procedure – extension of time – Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, Rule 10 – delay caused by non‑supply of High Court records – constitutes good cause to extend time.
|
27 October 2014 |
|
Delay caused by non‑supply of High Court records constituted good cause for extension of time under Rule 10.
Civil procedure — Extension of time — Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 — Good cause — Delay due to non‑supply of High Court proceedings, ruling and order — Application granted.
|
23 October 2014 |
|
An administrator must apply under Rule 57(3) to be substituted; without it he lacks locus standi and proceedings are incompetent.
Civil procedure – substitution of parties on death – Rule 57(3) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – appointment as administrator insufficient without formal application – lack of locus standi – incompetence of proceedings – striking out application.
|
23 October 2014 |
|
Court granted extension to include omitted exhibits after finding good cause and prompt, diligent action by the applicants.
Court of Appeal – extension of time – Rule 10 and Rule 96(6) – inclusion of omitted exhibits in record of appeal – good cause: length and reason for delay, prospects of success, prejudice and diligence – inadvertent omission vs negligence.
|
22 October 2014 |
|
Inadvertent omission of exhibits, coupled with demonstrated diligence, warranted extension of time to include them in the record of appeal.
Court of Appeal – extension of time – Rule 10 and Rule 96(6) – inclusion of omitted exhibits in record of appeal – good cause, diligence, length and reason for delay, prejudice to respondent.
|
22 October 2014 |
|
Failure to state the correct conviction in the notice of appeal renders the appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Appeal — Competence — Notice of appeal — Rule 68(2) Court of Appeal Rules — Mandatory requirement to state nature of conviction — Defective notice (stating rape when conviction was for Grave Sexual Abuse) — Non‑compliance renders appeal incompetent — Appeal struck out; suo motu consideration of jurisdictional defect.
|
22 October 2014 |
|
A defective notice of appeal misstating the conviction violated Rule 68(2) and rendered the appeal incompetent, so it was struck out.
Practice and procedure — Appeal — Notice of appeal — Rule 68(2) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — Mandatory requirement to state nature of conviction — Defective notice renders appeal incompetent — Court may raise defect suo motu.
|
22 October 2014 |
|
Wrong citation of a Court of Appeal Rule is not a mere typing error; application wrongly moved and struck out with costs.
Civil procedure – Amendment of notices and applications – Wrong citation of Court of Appeal Rules – Whether miscitation is a mere typing error – Rule 50 (leave to amend) v. general provision (Rule 4(2)(b)) – Wrong citation renders application incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
21 October 2014 |
|
Failure to read substituted information and to record plea vitiates proceedings; conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – substitution of charge – requirement to read substituted information to accused (s.275(1) CPA) – accused to plead instantly. Criminal procedure – plea of guilty – requirement to record plea (s.282 CPA). Irregularity – failure to read information and record plea amounts to fatal irregularity not curable under s.388 CPA – retrial ordered.
|
21 October 2014 |
|
A wrong citation of a Court of Appeal Rule is not a mere typing error and renders the application incompetent.
Court of Appeal Rules – mis-citation of enabling provision; amendment of court documents – Rule 50 vs general Rule 4(2)(b); competence – wrong citation renders application incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
21 October 2014 |
| September 2014 |
|
|
Circumstantial evidence and an accepted cautioned statement upheld a murder conviction and death sentence.
Criminal law – murder – circumstantial evidence – last person seen with the deceased; cumulative circumstances must firmly and cogently point to guilt. Evidence – cautioned/confessional statement – admissibility; reading over in court and agreement to contents; minor procedural defects not necessarily prejudicial. Proof of malice aforethought – inference from motive and conduct before and after the offence.
|
26 September 2014 |
|
Conviction quashed where child victim not properly examined and prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Evidence — sexual offences against children — competency of child witness under section 127(1) Evidence Act; corroboration and calling of available witnesses where circumstances require; burden of proof — prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and burden does not shift to accused; appellate interference where trial court misdirects or fails to consider defence and key evidential requirements.
|
25 September 2014 |
|
Convictions quashed for lack of DPP consent and subordinate court jurisdiction in economic offence prosecution.
Criminal law — Unlawful possession of government trophies; Economic offences — Consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions required (s26, Cap 200); Jurisdiction — High Court vested to try economic offences unless DPP certificate permits subordinate court (s12(3), Cap 200); Charge sheet defects — Failure to cite Cap 200 where offence is scheduled under it.
|
25 September 2014 |
|
A preliminary objection cannot dispose of a case where locus standi depends on disputed facts; matter remitted for full hearing.
Companies law – restoration of company to register – application to rectify register of members. Civil procedure – preliminary objection – requirement that it raise a pure point of law on ascertained facts (Mukisa principle). Locus standi – cannot be decided on preliminary objection where membership is disputed and allegations of fraud exist. Remedy – quash of High Court decision and remittal for hearing on merits; costs to appellant.
|
24 September 2014 |
|
Whether the appellant could be convicted of murder under the doctrine of common intention despite not inflicting fatal wounds.
Criminal law — Murder — Identification and credibility of single eyewitness; post‑mortem evidence and minor contradictions; doctrine of common intention (s.23 Penal Code) — presence, conduct and failure to dissociate; direct evidence of involvement (stone‑throwing) distinguished from hearsay.
|
24 September 2014 |
|
Notice of appeal lacking required signature and essential steps was struck out under the Court Rules.
Civil procedure – Appeal practice – striking out notice of appeal under Rule 89(2) for failure to take essential steps. Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 83(1) and (6) and Form D – notice of appeal must be signed by or on behalf of appellant; signature of legal personal representative required if appellant deceased. Rule 90(1) – Certificate of Delay – entitlement denied where delays are unexplained or not properly evidenced. Failure to procure court records does not automatically excuse non‑prosecution absent adequate proof of service and entitlement to extension.
|
23 September 2014 |
|
Applicant's murder conviction upheld; judge dissented on death sentence, finding capital punishment inhuman and preferring life imprisonment.
Criminal law – murder – evidence – common intention established to rid deceased of land claimants. Sentencing – death penalty – constitutionality and proportionality – argued as inherently inhuman and degrading. Human rights – irreversibility and risk of wrongful execution – preference for life imprisonment.
|
23 September 2014 |
|
Failure to enter a conviction and specify statutory offence (ss235,312(2) CPA) is fatal; proceedings quashed and record remitted for proper judgment.
Criminal procedure — Mandatory entry of conviction (s235 CPA) — Judgment must specify offence and statutory provision (s312(2) CPA) — Omission fatal — Appeals rendered incompetent — Court’s revisionary power under s4(2) AJA to quash and remit for compliant judgment — Retrospective commencement of sentence from original sentencing date.
|
23 September 2014 |
|
A transfer under s256A(1) CPA must precede plea and name the magistrate; failure renders trial null and is quashed.
Criminal procedure – Transfer under section 256A(1) CPA – Transfer must be before plea and preliminary hearing; Transfer must be directed to a specific resident magistrate with extended jurisdiction; Jurisdictional defect – trial, proceedings, judgment and sentence rendered nullity; Appellate jurisdiction – invocation of section 4(2) AJA to quash and remit.
|
23 September 2014 |
|
Court struck out respondent's out-of-time Notice of Appeal filed nearly three years late under Rule 76(2).
Civil procedure – appeal – striking out notice of appeal – time bar – Rule 76(2) Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 – Rule 89(2) application – credibility of medical excuse for non-appearance.
|
22 September 2014 |
|
A time-barred Notice of Appeal filed years after judgment was struck out; dubious medical excuse did not justify non-appearance.
Civil procedure – appeal time limits – Rule 76(2) Court of Appeal Rules 1979 – Notice of Appeal filed out of time struck out. Civil procedure – applications to strike out – Rule 89(2) Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – application allowed where appeal is time-barred. Procedure – non-appearance – medical evidence must be genuine to excuse absence; unreliable evidence will not prevent hearing.
|
22 September 2014 |
|
Appeal allowed under Rule 39(6); conviction quashed, 30‑year sentence set aside and appellant ordered released.
Criminal procedure – Extension/leave under Rule 39(6), Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – sufficiency of cause for bringing an appeal. Appeal – appellate intervention where parties concede both sufficiency of cause and merit – quashing conviction and setting aside sentence. Order for release – effect of quashing conviction and sentence; release unless otherwise lawfully held.
|
19 September 2014 |
|
Stay of execution refused where applicant failed to show substantial loss and did not provide required security.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Court’s discretion under Rule 11(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Conditions: substantial loss, lack of unreasonable delay, security for due performance. Security – Applicant cannot rely on property not shown to be his to satisfy Rule 11(2)(d)(iii). Appeal procedure – Institution of appeal does not automatically stay execution; stay is granted only upon good cause shown.
|
17 September 2014 |
|
Ignorance of the law and unspecified grounds do not justify extension of time to seek Review of an appeal decision.
Criminal procedure — Application for extension of time to seek Review — Rules 10 and 48(1) Court of Appeal Rules 2009; Extension of time — sufficiency of cause — ignorance of law not sufficient; Review of Court of Appeal decision — exceptional remedy, not automatic; Requirement to particularise grounds of alleged illegality (Rule 66(1)) to attract discretionary extension; Reliance on Kalunga & Co. v. NBC Ltd. and related authorities.
|
11 September 2014 |
|
Unexplained lighting, delayed arrest and improper admission of a confession defeated proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Visual identification – recognition from a lit room and from torches – necessity to explain source and intensity of light; conditions favouring identification. Criminal procedure – Delay in arrest – unexplained delay undermining witness credibility. Evidence – Cautioned/confessional statement – duty to hold inquiry into voluntariness before admission. Standard of proof – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; doubts resolved for accused.
|
11 September 2014 |
|
|
10 September 2014 |
|
Court granted extension to serve notice of appeal due to registry endorsement failure, with service to occur within 14 days.
Civil procedure — Extension of time — Application under Rules 10 and 84(1) — Delay attributed to registry's failure to endorse notice of appeal — Respondent’s non-opposition and discretionary grant of extension.
|
10 September 2014 |
|
An unopposed adjournment pending service of written submissions and related extension application was granted under Rule 59.
Court procedure – Adjournment – Application adjourned under Rule 59 where adjournment depended on outcome of related extension-of-time application and service of written submissions; respondents unopposed.
|
10 September 2014 |
|
Court granted leave to withdraw an application for extension of time as it was overtaken by events; no costs.
Civil procedure – Withdrawal of application – Consent agreement under Rule 58(2) – Leave to withdraw under Rule 58(3). Procedural – Application rendered superfluous where underlying matter already determined. Costs – No order for costs on withdrawal by consent.
|
10 September 2014 |
|
Court granted withdrawal of extension application as superfluous and made no order for costs.
Civil procedure – Withdrawal of interlocutory application – Consent agreement under Rule 58(2) Court Rules – Leave to withdraw granted under Rule 58(3) when application rendered superfluous by determination of main matter – No order as to costs.
|
10 September 2014 |
|
Applicants withdrew their extension application; court granted withdrawal under Rule 58(3) and ordered no costs.
Civil procedure – withdrawal of application – application for extension of time – leave to withdraw under Rule 58 of the Court Rules – unopposed withdrawal – costs not awarded.
|
10 September 2014 |
|
Applicants withdrew their extension application; court granted withdrawal under Rule 58 and made no order as to costs.
Civil procedure – Withdrawal of application – Application for extension of time – Withdrawal permitted under Rule 58 of the Court Rules – Court grants withdrawal and makes no order for costs where respondent does not object.
|
10 September 2014 |
|
Court allowed criminal appeal, quashed convictions and set aside sentences, finding sufficient cause for complaint.
Criminal appeal – sufficiency of grounds for complaint – State Attorney not supporting conviction – Court of Appeal allowance under Rule 39(6) – convictions quashed, sentences set aside.
|
9 September 2014 |
|
An application for leave to appeal from a High Court (Land Division) decision is incompetent in the Court of Appeal if leave was not first obtained and the 14‑day time limit was missed.
Land law / appellate procedure — Section 47(1) Land Disputes Courts Act — leave to appeal to Court of Appeal must be obtained from High Court (Land Division). Civil procedure — jurisdiction — Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to entertain direct leave applications where statute requires leave from High Court. Appeal procedure — time limits — rule 45(a) Court of Appeal Rules requires leave applications within 14 days; failure to comply renders application incompetent. Procedural requirements — specification of impugned decision on Notice of Motion (raised but not decided).
|
8 September 2014 |
|
A trial court's failure to enter a conviction renders its judgment incompetent and warrants quashing and remittal.
Criminal procedure – Mandatory requirement to enter conviction before sentence – sections 235(1) and 312(2) Criminal Procedure Act. Incompetence of judgment – a purported judgment without a conviction is no judgment at all and cannot support an appeal. Appellate jurisdiction – first appellate court cannot uphold a trial judgment that lacks a conviction. Revisional powers – Court may invoke section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act to quash, set aside and remit for proper conviction and sentencing. Remedy – remittal to trial court to compose proper judgment; custody to continue and sentence to be backdated to initial incarceration date.
|
5 September 2014 |
|
The applicant's leave application was incompetent and time-barred; leave must be sought from the High Court and filed within 14 days.
Land law – Appeals from High Court (Land Division) – Section 47(1) Land Disputes Courts Act – leave to appeal must be obtained from the High Court. Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 r45(a) – time limit for application for leave to appeal – 14 days – late filing renders application incompetent. Procedural competence – Notice of Motion defects – jurisdiction and time bar dispositive.
|
5 September 2014 |