|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1986 |
|
|
A late notice of appeal without a successful extension renders the appeal incompetent and it will be struck off the register.
* Criminal procedure — Appeal competence — Notice of appeal must be filed within 14 days under Rule 76(2), Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 — Late notice without successful extension renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck off the register.
|
19 December 1986 |
| November 1986 |
|
|
Further particulars including agents' identities, dates, places and character of alleged campaigns must be disclosed in pleadings.
* Civil procedure — Pleadings and particulars — Requirement to disclose identities of agents alleged to have conducted secret campaigns. * Civil procedure — Further particulars — necessity to state dates, places, character of alleged illegal campaigns and alleged enticements/corrupt promises. * Fair trial — Avoidance of surprise and prejudice in pleadings. * Costs — appellate award of costs of appeal while leaving lower court costs order intact.
|
6 November 1986 |
Civil Practice and Procedure - Pleadings - Further and better particulars- Whether the further and betterparticulars ordered to befurnished were matters offact or evidence. |
6 November 1986 |
| October 1986 |
|
|
Court upheld murder conviction, rejecting provocation defence and finding circumstantial evidence established malice aforethought.
* Criminal law – murder v. manslaughter – sudden provocation – availability and proof of provocation.
* Evidence – weight of cautioned and extra‑judicial statements and witness credibility.
* Circumstantial evidence – premeditation inferred from enticement, preparatory acts and concealment.
* Criminal procedure – assessors’ direction on burden and standard of proof; omission held harmless.
|
30 October 1986 |
|
Provocation defence rejected; circumstantial and statement evidence established intent, appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – murder – elements of intent – circumstantial evidence and conduct before and after killing indicating premeditation. * Criminal procedure – admissibility and weight of cautioned and extra-judicial statements. * Evidence – credibility of witnesses and confessions to third parties. * Summing-up – duty to direct assessors on burden and standard of proof in criminal and circumstantial-evidence cases; harmless error doctrine.
|
30 October 1986 |
|
Jurisdiction previously decided on appeal is res judicata; village-sanctioned land sale in possession upheld and appeal allowed with costs.
* Civil procedure – Res judicata – issue of jurisdiction previously decided on appeal cannot be reopened in same suit.* Administrative/land law – Customary/village land – requirement of village council approval for transfers; effect of transaction witnessed and sanctioned by village authorities and ward secretary.* Possession and title – purchaser in occupation who seeks survey/title cannot be deprived by later allocation from District Land Office.
|
30 October 1986 |
|
An unapproved sale in a registered village is void; a validly registered certificate of occupancy defeats unregistered informal interests.
Land law – Registered certificate of occupancy – effect of first registration and indefeasibility (Cap.334 s.33(1)(b)); sale in a registered village – need for Village Council approval under Directions made under Villages and Ujamaa Villages Act (1975) – disposition without approval void; planning area status – relationship between native/customary occupancy and statutory right of occupancy; damages for delay – necessity to prove readiness, willingness and ability to build.
|
30 October 1986 |
Land Law - Right of occupancy granted over land held under customary law - Whether the right of occupancy extinguishes the title held under customary law. Land Law - Land held under customary law - Area declared a planning area - Whether holder of land under customary law is automatically rendered a squatter. Land Law - Disposition of land held under the Villages and Ujamaa Villages Act, 1975 -Approval of disposition by the village council not obtained - Disposition void. Villages and Ujamaa Villages Act, 1975 - Disposition of land under the control of a village -Approval of disposition by village council necessaiy. Villages and Ujamaa Villages Act, 1975 - Disposition of land under the control of a village -Approval of disposition given by the H Branch CCM chairman and ward secretary - Whether approval given by Village Council. Damages - The Rightful owner of land could not build on it because of a trespasser- No evidence that owner was ready, willing and able to build - Only nominal damages awardable. |
30 October 1986 |
|
A trial judge's misidentification of a witness and resulting factual error vitiated an ex parte judgment, which was set aside.
* Civil procedure – substituted service – sufficiency of proof of service and conflicting affidavits on notice of summons.
* Civil procedure – ex parte judgment – setting aside where defendant alleges non-service.
* Appellate review – material error of fact and misidentification of witnesses vitiating credibility findings and ruling.
|
9 October 1986 |
|
Trial judge’s factual mistake vitiates substituted-service ex parte judgment; judgment set aside and defendant granted leave to defend.
- Civil procedure – substituted service – validity of service by affixing notice to defendant’s dwelling – effect on ex parte judgment.- Civil procedure – applications to set aside ex parte judgments – role of contradictory affidavits and need for viva voce evidence to resolve credibility.- Appellate review – material error of fact by trial judge (mistaken identity/false finding that party testified) vitiates ruling and warrants setting aside judgment.
|
9 October 1986 |
|
Appeal dismissed: confession, dying statements and multiple stab wounds upheld murder conviction, provocation rejected.
Criminal law – murder – extra-judicial confession – dying declaration – admission to arresting officer – provocation not established – malice inferred from multiple stab wounds and force.
|
8 October 1986 |
|
Confession, dying declarations and post-mortem evidence proved murder; a lone verbal remark did not constitute legal provocation.
* Criminal law – Murder – Extra-judicial statement/confession – admissibility and weight where no objection made at trial.
* Criminal law – Dying declaration – admissibility and corroborative value.
* Criminal law – Provocation – what constitutes legal provocation; single verbal remark insufficient.
* Criminal law – Inference of malice from weapon, multiple stab wounds and post-mortem evidence.
* Appeal – Sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction for murder; appeal dismissed.
|
8 October 1986 |
|
Extra-judicial confession, dying declaration and medical evidence upheld; alleged words did not constitute legal provocation; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – murder – extra-judicial confession – admissibility and weight of confession; dying declaration corroboration; post-mortem evidence (multiple stab wounds, cut liver, haemorrhage); provocation – whether words amounted to legal provocation; inference of malice from weapon, number of wounds and force used.
|
8 October 1986 |
|
Murder conviction upheld: confession and dying declarations credible; alleged taunt did not amount to legal provocation.
* Criminal law – confession – admissibility and weight of extra-judicial statement to a Justice of the Peace; * Evidence – dying declaration – credibility and corroboration; * Criminal law – provocation – words “your time is gone” not legal provocation; * Evidence – inference of malice from multiple, forceful stab wounds.
|
8 October 1986 |
|
Failure to file the mandatory memorandum under Rule 65(5) leads to dismissal; concurrent factual findings upheld.
Criminal appeal – procedural compliance – Rule 65(5) Court of Appeal Rules – failure to file memorandum of appeal – dismissal; appellate review – deference to concurrent findings of fact supported by credible evidence.
|
8 October 1986 |
|
|
8 October 1986 |
|
Appeal dismissed under Rule 65(5) for failure to file a memorandum; lower courts' concurrent findings supported by credible evidence.
* Criminal procedure – appeal – non‑compliance with Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 65(5)) – failure to file memorandum of appeal – dismissal.
* Appellate review – concurrent findings of fact – credibility and cogent evidence – appeal lacking prospect of success.
* Appellate practice – court may consider merits in passing despite procedural dismissal.
|
8 October 1986 |
|
Sudden bill-hook attack and extrajudicial admission established malice aforethought; appeal against murder conviction dismissed.
* Criminal law – Murder – Malice aforethought established by extrajudicial confession, nature of weapon and injuries, and suddenness of attack.
* Criminal law – Provocation – Suspicions and prior disputes remote in time and insufficient to reduce offence to manslaughter.
* Criminal law – Intoxication – Evidence of drinking without proof of incapacity does not negate mens rea.
|
7 October 1986 |
|
Extra-judicial admission, eyewitnesses and the lethal nature of the blow established malice aforethought; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Murder – Malice aforethought established by nature of weapon, fatal blow and extra-judicial admission.
* Provocation – Past, groundless suspicion months earlier does not amount to legal provocation.
* Intoxication – Mere consumption of liquor without evidence of incapacity does not negate intent.
* Evidence – Eyewitness identification and extra-judicial confession carry decisive weight in establishing guilt.
|
7 October 1986 |
|
Confessions to several persons, corroborated by post-mortem strangulation findings, upheld a murder conviction despite retraction.
Criminal law – Confession – Retraction – Need for corroboration where confession retracted; Post-mortem evidence – Strangulation with ligature as corroboration of confession; Sufficiency of evidence – appellate review of trial court’s credibility findings.
|
7 October 1986 |
|
Retraction of an extra‑judicial confession does not preclude conviction where independent confessions and post‑mortem evidence corroborate murder.
Criminal law – confession and corroboration – retracted extra‑judicial confession – corroboration by independent witness admissions and post‑mortem evidence (strangulation) – weight of unsworn statement.
|
7 October 1986 |
|
Confession corroborated by other evidence established malice; unsworn in‑court account was insufficient—appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Murder – confession to a Justice of the Peace and admissions to police – corroboration by injuries and witnesses – inconsistency of unsworn in‑court statement – malice aforethought; no provocation.
|
7 October 1986 |
|
A confession to a Justice of the Peace and corroborating evidence established deliberate murder; provocation not proven.
* Criminal law – Murder – Confession to Justice of the Peace – weight and reliability of confession and corroborating statements; * Criminal procedure – Unsigned/unsworn in‑court statement – credibility when inconsistent with prior statements; * Homicide – provocation and malice aforethought – whether evidence supports reduction of charge; * Evidence – death by cut wound to neck established despite decomposition.
|
7 October 1986 |
| August 1986 |
|
|
Leave to appeal refused because the limitation issue involves disputed facts requiring a full trial.
* Limitation — whether claim barred by six-year prescription — start date of limitation period contested by conflicting documentary and oral evidence.
* Limitation — mixed question of law and fact — where factual disputes exist, limitation cannot be resolved without a full hearing.
* Appeal/leave to appeal — leave refused where resolution requires evidence and trial assessment rather than a pure point of law.
|
4 August 1986 |
| July 1986 |
|
|
Application to appeal out of time dismissed for casual conduct and ineffective appearance by State counsel.
* Criminal procedure – application to file appeal out of time – extension of time – dismissal for want of prosecution due to ineffective appearance by State counsel; Rule 58(1) and Rule 58(3) of the Rules.
|
16 July 1986 |
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Economic crime committed before the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, 1984 came into force - Case then pending with the Police - Whether G accused couldproperly be charged before an Economic Crimes Court when the Act became operational. Economic and Organized Crime ControlAct, 1984 - Interpretation - The word “ruling" in s.2 ofthe Act -Whether to be given a restrictive meaning. H Criminal Law - Evidence - Defence evidence raises serious doubts as to the guilt ofthe appellant. Evidence - Standard ofproof-Prosecution evidence is not strong and defence evidence raises serious doubts as to the guilt ofthe appellant. I Sentencing - Judge alone sentencing the appellant - Whetherproper - Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, 1984, s.16 |
4 July 1986 |
| June 1986 |
|
|
High Court conducting a trial on appeal without records and calling witnesses is a nullity; appeal restored for rehearing.
Appeal procedure – Improper conduct of appeal by trial de novo – High Court judge calling witnesses on own motion – Proceedings and judgment held a nullity – Appeal restored for proper hearing.
|
5 June 1986 |
| May 1986 |
|
|
Appellate court allowed additional evidence to determine if disputed land lies within a registered village requiring village approval.
Evidence—Application for additional evidence on appeal; Land law—whether disputed plot lies within a registered village under the Village and Ujamaa Villages Act 1975; Village land—whether transfers require Village Council approval; Appellate court’s discretion to receive further evidence.
|
14 May 1986 |
|
Court allowed additional evidence on whether disputed land lies in a registered village and requires village council approval.
Civil procedure – Application for additional evidence on appeal – Whether evidence of village registration and land location is relevant and admissible – Court of Appeal taking additional evidence itself – Village and Ujamaa Villages (Registration, Designation and Administration) Act 1975 – Registered plan No. 17448.
|
14 May 1986 |
|
Court allowed additional evidence to decide whether disputed land lies in a registered village requiring village council approval.
* Civil procedure – Application for additional evidence on appeal – Admissibility where evidence is relevant to jurisdictional/ statutory questions of village land. * Land law – village registration under Village and Ujamaa Villages (Registration, Designation and Administration) Act, 1975 – effect on transfers and requirement of village council approval. * Procedure – Court-directed taking of additional evidence and summons of witness.
|
14 May 1986 |
|
Court allowed additional evidence to determine whether disputed plot lies in a registered village and if village approval is required for transfer.
Civil procedure – Application for additional evidence on appeal – Admissibility where evidence may determine applicability of village land law; Land law – whether land lies within a registered village; Village and Ujamaa Villages (Registration, Designation and Administration) Act 1975 – requirement of Village Council approval for disposition of village land.
|
14 May 1986 |
|
Whether prosecution proved murder beyond reasonable doubt and whether appellant's provocation/self‑defence claim was credible.
Criminal law – Murder – Sufficiency of evidence to prove unlawful killing beyond reasonable doubt – Credibility of eyewitnesses and medical evidence; defences of provocation and self‑defence – aggressor versus person acting in self‑defence.
|
14 May 1986 |
| April 1986 |
|
|
Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to order concurrent sentences when no appeal is pending; application refused.
Appellate jurisdiction – Court of Appeal is a creature of statute; powers limited to dealing with appeals and incidental orders; no jurisdiction to grant concurrent sentences in a standalone application; reliance on trial‑court provisions or High Court appellate authorities is irrelevant where no appeal is before the Court of Appeal.
|
28 April 1986 |
|
The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to order concurrent sentences in absence of an appeal; application refused.
* Appellate jurisdiction — Court of Appeal’s powers are statutory and exercisable only when dealing with an appeal under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Court of Appeal Rules. * Concurrent sentences — Power to order concurrent terms at trial (Penal Code s.36) or on High Court appeal does not vest the Court of Appeal to make such orders absent an appeal. * Procedural limitation — Applications seeking orders incidental to sentencing must be brought in the forum having jurisdiction; Court of Appeal cannot grant relief outside an appeal.
|
28 April 1986 |
|
Court of Appeal cannot order concurrent sentences where no appeal is before it.
Criminal procedure — Concurrent sentences — Court of Appeal jurisdiction — Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.3 and Court of Appeal Rules r.36 restrict powers to orders made in course of dealing with appeals — Penal Code s.36 and Cr.P.C. s.133 do not empower Court of Appeal to order concurrence outside appeals.
|
28 April 1986 |
| March 1986 |
|
|
Whether the Tribunal and Minister had jurisdiction under s9A/s9B and power to order reinstatement — court upheld the applicants.
Labour law – Trade dispute – Jurisdiction under Permanent Labour Tribunal Act s9A/s9B; necessity of trade union involvement; consultation requirements under Security of Employment Act s6(1)(g); Ministerial power to order reinstatement; review by certiorari and delay considerations.
|
29 March 1986 |
|
Improper pleadings (a "counterclaim to a counterclaim") and inconsistent decree/execution figures rendered the trial a nullity.
Civil procedure – Pleadings – No legal basis for a "counterclaim to a counterclaim"; a single counterclaim only – Pleadings must fairly define issues tried. Civil procedure – Trial and judgment – Court must decide issues it tried; observations without final findings create unsatisfactory judgments. Execution – Decree and execution figures must correspond; material variance may invalidate enforcement. Remedy – Fundamental procedural and substantive divergence can render trial a nullity; appellate court may quash decree and exclude time for limitation to allow fresh proceedings.
|
29 March 1986 |
|
|
29 March 1986 |
|
Improper pleadings and material variances between proceedings, judgment and execution rendered the trial a nullity.
Civil procedure – Pleadings – No such pleading as a 'counterclaim to a counterclaim'; only one counterclaim permitted – Pleadings must identify causes of action – Trial must be confined to pleaded issues – Judgment and decree must correspond with what was tried – Variance between decree and execution application vitiates proceedings – Trial declared nullity.
|
29 March 1986 |
|
Dying declaration admissible but unsafe without corroborative circumstantial evidence; conviction quashed.
* Criminal law – Dying declaration – admissibility where elicited by non-leading questions by witnesses.
* Criminal law – Dying declaration – effect of declarant's fluctuating capacity; requirement for corroboration before convicting.
* Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – necessity of adequate corroboration to support identification and guilt.
* Evidence – Leading questions – distinction between permissible clarifying questions and impermissible leading examination.
|
26 March 1986 |
|
Claim of self‑defence rejected; evidence established malice aforethought and murder, appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Murder – Whether killing was committed with malice aforethought; * Self‑defence – Validity of plea of legitimate self‑defence where physical injuries and witness accounts are inconsistent with alleged attack; * Evidence – Reliance on eyewitness testimony and prior threats; accused's post‑offence conduct and failure to call supporting witnesses as factors bearing on credibility.
|
26 March 1986 |
|
Self‑defence rejected; prior threats and conduct supported malice aforethought, murder conviction and death sentence upheld.
Criminal law – murder – assessment of self‑defence claim; credibility of witnesses; prior threats and conduct after offence as circumstantial evidence of malice aforethought; adverse inference from failure to call material witnesses.
|
26 March 1986 |
|
A repudiated extra-judicial confession requires independent corroboration; failure to direct assessors on this invalidates the conviction.
* Criminal law – Confession – Repudiated extra-judicial confession requires independent corroboration before it may support a conviction. * Criminal procedure – Trial judge’s duty – Must direct self and assessors on need for corroboration of a repudiated confession; failure may invalidate proceedings. * Evidence – Contradictions in prosecution witnesses can diminish weight and necessitate corroboration. * Where no independent incriminating corroboration exists, conviction must be quashed and retrial may be futile.
|
26 March 1986 |
|
Reported
Criminal Law - Self-defence - Excessive force used-Unlawful.
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Arrest - Arrest by people’s militia on instruction of village chairman or committee - Whether lawful. |
26 March 1986 |
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Insanity - When section 168A of the Criminal Procedure Code may be invoked. |
26 March 1986 |
|
Reported
Evidence - Dying declaration - Declaration made in answer to questions - None of the questions was leading question - Whether admissible in evidence.
Evidence - Corroboration - Dying declaration - Declaration made while deceased was in fluctuating capacity to talk - Whether safe to base conviction upon it without corroboration.
Evidence - Corroboration - Corroborative circumstantial evidence - An important gap in the circumstantial evidence - Whether it can corroborate. |
26 March 1986 |
|
Resistance to an unlawful village arrest was lawful, but excessive force converted self‑defence into manslaughter.
Criminal law – unlawful arrest by village authorities – absence of statutory arrest power – right to resist unlawful arrest – proportionality of force in self‑defence – excessive force converts lawful resistance into manslaughter (Penal Code self‑defence principles).
|
26 March 1986 |
|
Resistance to an unlawful village arrest justified but lethal, disproportionate force warranted reduction from murder to manslaughter.
Criminal law — unlawful arrest by village authorities — right to resist unlawful arrest — limits of self‑defence — excessive force converts lawful resistance to culpable homicide; conviction substituted from murder to manslaughter.
|
26 March 1986 |
|
Appeal dismissed: conviction upheld; medical evidence and credible eyewitness account disproved accidental death, no sufficient basis to refer for insanity.
* Criminal law – Murder – credibility of eye‑witness account; medical evidence corroborating homicidal blows versus accidental fall. * Criminal procedure – Mental disorder – Referral under s.168A only where it appears accused may be insane; discretionary and requires material on record. * Appeal – appellate court will not disturb trial judge's findings of fact and credibility absent compelling material.
|
26 March 1986 |
|
Appeal against murder conviction dismissed; witness credibility and medical evidence supported intentional killing, no sufficient basis to trigger insanity inquiry.
* Criminal law – Murder of infant – credibility of sole eyewitness (mother) and corroboration by medical report.
* Criminal procedure – Insanity inquiries – section 168A – when trial court must order psychiatric examination.
* Evidence – accidental fall versus intentional assault; assessors and unraised defences.
|
26 March 1986 |