|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| July 2011 |
|
|
Improperly recorded extra-judicial confession expunged, but conviction upheld on doctrine of recent possession.
* Criminal law – admissibility of extra-judicial statements – mandatory compliance with Chief Justice’s Instructions when Justice of the Peace records confessions; non-compliance renders statement inadmissible.
* Evidence – circumstantial evidence – doctrine of recent possession – possession of deceased’s property shortly after death and recovery from accused’s premises supports inference of guilt.
* Procedure – expunction of improperly recorded extra-judicial statements and affirmation of conviction where independent evidential basis remains.
|
1 July 2011 |
|
|
1 July 2011 |
|
Whether the applicant's guilty plea was equivocal and whether appeal lay where the plea was unequivocal.
* Criminal procedure – guilty plea – when a plea is unequivocal – charge read and explained on multiple occasions; facts and exhibits supporting plea. * Criminal procedure – appeals under section 360(1) Criminal Procedure Act – limits on appeals where accused pleads guilty. * Voluntariness of plea – allegation of coercion at police station must be supported by record to vitiate plea.
|
1 July 2011 |
|
Cautioned statement recorded outside statutory period inadmissible; unlisted witnesses admissible; appellant's rape conviction and sentence upheld.
* Criminal procedure – admissibility of cautioned statement – recording beyond statutory four-hour period – contravention of s.50(1)(a) renders statement inadmissible and it must be expunged.
* Criminal procedure – preliminary hearing witness lists – requirement applies to committal/High Court proceedings, not subordinate court trials; unlisted witnesses may testify.
* Evidence – rape – victim’s eyewitness testimony, PF3 medical evidence and accused’s flight as corroboration sufficient to prove carnal knowledge without consent.
* Sentence – statutory minimum for rape upheld.
|
1 July 2011 |
|
A nine‑hour gap between threat and killing negates provocation; convictions for murder and a single death sentence were upheld.
* Criminal law – Murder – Provocation: provocation must be sudden and leave no time for passion to cool under ss.201–202 Penal Code; nine‑hour interval defeats the defence. * Evidence – Extrajudicial/cautioned statements and post‑mortem reports can establish malice aforethought. * Sentencing – omnibus death sentence corrected; death pronounced on one count only (Agnes Doris Liundi).
|
1 July 2011 |
|
Provocation unavailable after a nine‑hour interval; murder convictions upheld and death sentence specified to one count.
Criminal law – Murder – Defence of provocation under sections 201 and 202 Penal Code – cooling-off period; premeditation v heat of passion – extra‑judicial admissions and post‑mortem evidence – omnibus death sentence specified to one count.
|
1 July 2011 |
| June 2011 |
|
|
Estoppel barred a late notice objection; identification and recovery evidence were insufficient to convict the applicant.
Criminal procedure – Notice of Appeal – competence of appeal; Evidence Act s.123 – estoppel against late preliminary objection; Identification evidence – requirements for watertight identification; Recovered property – connection between recovered items in unclaimed bag and accused; Conviction for robbery with violence – adequacy of proof.
|
30 June 2011 |
|
Conviction based solely on a single uncorroborated witness with unexplained evidential gaps is unsafe; appeal allowed.
Criminal law – murder – reliance on single witness – necessity of special caution and scrutiny – failure to call available witnesses and forensic investigation undermines prosecution – conviction unsafe where evidence not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
|
30 June 2011 |
|
Court quashed robbery conviction due to weak identification and recovery evidence; estoppel barred late notice objection.
Criminal law – robbery with violence; identification evidence – proof of ownership of recovered property; recovery of stolen property in a vehicle; mere presence insufficient for conviction; estoppel – s.123 Evidence Act barring late preliminary objection about Notice of Appeal; procedural requirement – Notice of Appeal under s.361(1)(a) CPA.
|
29 June 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where child-witness evidence was improperly received without required voire dire under the Evidence Act.
* Evidence Act s.127(2) – Child witnesses – requirement for voire dire and finding that child possesses sufficient intelligence and understands duty to speak truth before receiving unsworn evidence.
* Admissibility – Failure to conduct required inquiry renders child evidence improper and may make a conviction unsafe.
* Criminal burden of proof – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt on admissible evidence; conviction cannot stand where primary evidence is inadmissible and uncorroborated.
|
27 June 2011 |
|
Credible eyewitness evidence and established motive upheld murder conviction despite expunged cautioned statement.
Criminal law – murder – credibility of witnesses – minor inconsistencies not fatal; alleged accomplice evidence – not shown to be unreliable; admissibility of cautioned statement – improper admission expunged; motive and prior ill‑treatment admissible to infer malice aforethought; child protection considerations under Law of the Child Act.
|
27 June 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where stolen items lacked in‑court identification and searches breached statutory requirements.
Criminal law – search and seizure – section 38 Criminal Procedure Act – warrantless searches and mandatory receipt (s.38(3)); Identification of exhibits – in-court identification required before invoking doctrine of recent possession; Recent possession – prerequisites for inference of guilt; Failure to comply with statutory search procedure undermines reliability of seized evidence.
|
27 June 2011 |
|
The court upheld the applicant's conviction for unlawful possession of elephant tusks, finding evidence sufficient and no warrant required.
* Criminal law – Wildlife offences – Unauthorized possession of government trophy (elephant tusks). * Criminal procedure – Search and seizure – Section 38 CPA (search receipt) inapplicable where police intercept a vehicle while effecting an arrest and do not enter premises. * Evidence – Competence and weight of police witnesses; admissibility and probative value of a detailed cautioned statement admitted without objection. * Appellate procedure – Summary dismissal of appeals; principles and cautions (Iddi Kondo guidance).
|
27 June 2011 |
|
A dispute about termination is a "trade dispute" under s.3 Industrial Court Act; High Court lacked jurisdiction, appeal dismissed.
* Industrial Court Act, s.3 – definition of "trade dispute" – includes disputes connected with "employment or non-employment" and terms/conditions of employment.
* Jurisdiction – disputes over termination/non-employment fall within Industrial Court jurisdiction rather than High Court.
* Trade dispute vs labour dispute – phrases are inclusive/interchangeable; no jurisdictional distinction.
* Precedent – Tambueni confirms "non-employment" covers redundancy and similar termination issues.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
Conviction for personation quashed where prosecution failed to call officers to prove the alleged impersonation.
Criminal law – Personation, s.369 Penal Code – ingredients of offence – necessity to prove false representation and intent to defraud; evidential sufficiency – inability of investigatory inquiries to substitute for calling the person purportedly impersonated or relevant station officers; failure to call such witnesses may render conviction unsafe.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
Conviction for personation quashed for failure to prove identity and intent to defraud beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Personation (s.369(1) Penal Code) – Proof of identity and intent to defraud; necessity to call officers whose identity is in issue; investigative assertions insufficient; State declining to support conviction.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
An unequivocal guilty plea admitting the prosecution's facts bars appeal against conviction; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – plea of guilty – unequivocal admission; Criminal procedure – recording of guilty pleas – requirements and procedure (Adan v Republic); Statutory rape – essential ingredients proved; Appeals barred where accused pleaded guilty (s.360(1) CPA).
|
22 June 2011 |
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction to revise finalized District Court proceedings under sections 31 and 44 of the Magistrates' Courts Act.
Magistrates' Courts Act — scope of section 31 (Part III applies to Primary Courts only); section 44 — supervisory powers of the High Court limited to non-finalized proceedings; jurisdiction to entertain revision; prohibition of circumvention of appeal rights.
|
22 June 2011 |
|
High Court improperly summarily rejected the appellant's appeal; conviction based on unreliable identification evidence was quashed.
* Criminal procedure – Summary dismissal of appeals under section 364(1)(c) Criminal Procedure Act – powers to be exercised sparingly; judge must read and indicate having read record and give reasons where appropriate. * Identification evidence – reliance on moonlight/fire and witness familiarity – insufficiency and inconsistencies may render conviction unsafe. * Appellate jurisdiction – exercise of revisional powers under section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act to quash unsafe convictions.
|
22 June 2011 |
|
Appellant's murder conviction and death sentence upheld based on credible witnesses and proven motive despite expunged statement.
* Criminal law – murder – sufficiency of evidence – ocular testimony of interested witnesses and assessment of credibility. * Evidence – minor inconsistencies do not necessarily defeat credible eyewitness accounts. * Evidence – cautioned statement improperly admitted; inadmissible if statutory procedure not followed. * Criminal law – motive and prior conduct can support inference of malice aforethought. * Child protection – reference to Law of the Child Act and societal duty to protect children.
|
22 June 2011 |
|
Eyewitness and medical evidence can sustain a child‑rape conviction, and concurrent findings will not be disturbed absent shown misdirection.
Criminal law – Rape of a minor; Sufficiency of eyewitness evidence where victim cannot testify; Appellate review – deference to concurrent findings of fact; Procedure – non‑compliance with order for additional evidence requires demonstration of prejudice.
|
21 June 2011 |
|
Eyewitness and medical evidence can sustain a rape conviction when a child victim cannot testify; concurrent findings will stand.
Criminal law — Rape: sufficiency of eyewitness evidence where child victim cannot testify; medical corroboration; appellate restraint regarding concurrent findings of fact; effect of non‑compliance with order for additional evidence.
|
21 June 2011 |
|
A second appeal dismissed where courts properly found applicant guilty of attempted rape; conviction and 30-year sentence upheld.
* Criminal law – Attempted rape – Proof requires intent plus overt act; conviction possible despite absence of penetration.
* Evidence – Credibility of eyewitnesses – concurrent factual findings entitled to deference on second appeal absent misapprehension or miscarriage of justice.
* Criminal procedure – Section 289 (committal witness-listing) applies to High Court trials after committal; not to subordinate court trials.
|
20 June 2011 |
| March 2011 |
|
|
Non‑compliance with s.192(3) (reading/explaining/signing memorandum) vitiated the preliminary hearing; conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
* Criminal procedure – Preliminary hearing – mandatory compliance with section 192(3) Criminal Procedure Act: memorandum of agreed facts must be read, explained in language understood and signed by accused;* Defence counsel cannot admit facts on behalf of accused – accused must personally state admitted facts;* Non-compliance vitiates the preliminary hearing and prevents application of s.192(4) deeming matters proved;* Retrial ordered in the interests of justice;* Revision under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act used to quash conviction and set aside sentence.
|
28 March 2011 |