|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2019 |
|
|
Applicants failed to show good cause for extension of time under Rule 10 due to unexplained delays.
Civil procedure – Extension of time under Rule 10 – Good cause required; applicant must account for each day of delay and show diligence; ‘‘technical delay’’ (Fortunatus Masha) limited to prompt applicants whose original appeal became incompetent; prospects of success not decisive at extension stage.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Misapplication of section 127 for child evidence requires corroboration; absence of corroboration led to quashing of conviction.
Evidence — Child witness — Section 127 Evidence Act — requirement for a recorded voire dire to admit unsworn evidence; misapplication of section 127 revives need for corroboration. Evidence — Corroboration — absence of corroborative material where section 127 misapplied renders conviction unsafe. Procedure — Admission of documentary medical evidence (PF3) — contents must be read in court or may be rendered ineffective.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Court granted extension to appeal despite partial delay accounting because apparent illegality on the face of the record constituted good cause.
Court of Appeal jurisdiction — competence of Court to hear extension applications where notice of appeal exists; Extension of time — discretionary, requires accounting for each day of delay; Apparent illegality on face of record may constitute good cause; Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules; Section 11 AJA and Rule 47 procedural commencement.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Extension of time granted due to technical delay by High Court Registry and arguable illegality, appeal to be filed within 60 days.
Extension of time – Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 10 – technical delay caused by High Court Registry’s failure to supply appeal records – illegality (jurisdictional defect and denial of hearing) as sufficient ground to grant extension – applicant’s duty to show good cause – no reply affidavit meant applicant’s account stood unchallenged.
|
13 December 2019 |
|
Driver's trafficking conviction upheld; mechanic's conviction quashed for lack of proof of participation.
Criminal law — Trafficking in narcotic drugs (khat) — Lawful arrest and search; chain of custody requirements for seized drugs; admissibility and weight of forensic analysis; credibility of police witnesses and absence of civilian witnesses; distinction between presence and participation (common intention) — conviction sustained for driver/owner, acquittal for alleged mechanic.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Revision application withdrawn; applicant ordered to pay costs after failing to prove notice of withdrawal.
Civil procedure — Revision of High Court probate proceedings — application withdrawn under Rule 58(3) Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. Probate law — alleged procedural irregularities (domicile affidavit, annexing will, citation, ex-parte hearing) — raised but not determined due to withdrawal. Legal Aid Act 2017 s.31 — legal aid does not automatically preclude costs; costs may be ordered in exceptional circumstances and for conduct causing unnecessary expense. Costs — failure to produce proof of notice of withdrawal and failure to inform respondent justified ordering costs against applicant.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Failure to specify irreparable loss and to provide security justified dismissal of the stay of execution application.
Civil procedure — Stay of execution — jurisdiction to stay orders of subordinate courts where notice of appeal is filed; Rule 11(2)(d) — cumulative requirements: irreparable/substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security for due performance; Security for stay — essential to safeguard judgment creditor and facilitate post-appeal execution; General allegations of hardship insufficient to demonstrate irreparable loss.
|
12 December 2019 |
|
Unsworn child testimony given without proper voir dire requires corroboration; lack of it vitiated the conviction.
Evidence — Child witness (tender age) — voir dire requirement under section 127 — unsworn evidence — misapplication requires corroboration; PF3 not read out and expunged — conviction quashed for lack of corroboration.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
An out-of-time notice of intention to appeal to the High Court renders subsequent Court of Appeal proceedings incompetent and struck out.
Criminal procedure – Notice of intention to appeal – Time limit under section 361(1)(a) CPA – Competence of appeal – Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal – Preliminary objection under Rule 4(2)(a) CoA Rules – Rule 47 discretionary extension constrained by section 361(2) CPA.
|
10 December 2019 |
|
Guilty-plea conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove seized plants were prohibited without analyst evidence.
Criminal law – plea of guilty – exceptions to section 360(1) CPA (Mpinga) – when a guilty plea may be reviewed. Evidence – burden on prosecution to prove seized material is a prohibited narcotic/psychotropic substance – need for government analyst’s report. Drug Control and Enforcement Act – proof of nature of seized plants in transportation offences.
|
10 December 2019 |
|
A guilty plea does not dispense with the prosecution's duty to prove seized plants were prohibited; absent analyst proof, conviction quashed.
Criminal law – plea of guilty – limits on appeals under section 360(1) CPA and exceptions (Mpinga). Burden of proof – prosecution must prove seized material is a narcotic/psychotropic substance to criminal standard. Evidence – necessity of government analyst's report or equivalent proof to establish nature of seized plants. Conviction quashed where nature of alleged prohibited plants not proved.
|
10 December 2019 |
|
Overriding objective cannot excuse five-year delay in taking essential procedural steps; notice of appeal struck out.
Appellate procedure – striking out notice of appeal for failure to take essential step in time – Rule 89(2) and Rule 90(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. Overriding objective (AJA s3A, s3B) – cannot be used to circumvent mandatory time limits or to excuse prolonged inaction. Duty of parties/advocates to assist the Court (AJA s3B(2)).
|
6 December 2019 |
|
Appeal allowed because prosecution failed to prove seized plants were narcotic despite appellant's guilty plea.
Criminal law – guilty plea – exceptions allowing appeal (Laurence Mpinga) – plea imperfect/mistaken or facts not disclosing offence. Drug Control and Enforcement Act – transportation of prohibited plants – requirement that prosecution prove material is narcotic/psychotropic. Burden of proof – prosecution must adduce expert/analyst report to establish nature of seized plants; accused bears burden only to prove lawful authority/permit. Failure to produce analyst report – conviction unsustainable; conviction and mandatory sentence quashed.
|
6 December 2019 |
|
An appeal based on an incomplete record and defective drawn order is incompetent and was struck out absent exceptional grounds.
Appellate procedure – Competency of appeal – requirement of complete record of appeal including trial tribunal proceedings. Civil procedure – Drawn order – where drawn order does not reflect court’s decision, appeal may be defective. Appellate jurisdiction – Revisional powers – available in rare, exceptional circumstances to cure illegality; not to be used to circumvent procedural requirements. Failure to file supplementary record or cure defects – consequence is incompetency and striking out of appeal.
|
3 December 2019 |
|
|
3 December 2019 |
|
A preliminary objection is improper where its resolution requires factual findings about the completeness of the record.
Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Mukisa demurrer test – objection must raise a pure point of law not requiring factual enquiry. Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 96(1)(k) and Rule 96(8) – completeness of record of appeal and supplementary records. Proof of service – when disputes over affidavits of service render objections inappropriate for preliminary determination.
|
3 December 2019 |
|
An appeal missing trial tribunal proceedings and containing a defective drawn order is incompetent and struck out.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Record of appeal – completeness – omission of trial tribunal proceedings renders appeal incompetent. Civil procedure – Drawn order – inconsistency between drawn order and court decision undermines appeal competency. Appellate jurisdiction – Revisionary powers – limited to rare and exceptional cases; cannot be used to circumvent procedural rules. Remedy – striking out incompetent appeal; no costs where defects are raised suo motu by the Court.
|
2 December 2019 |