|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2012 |
|
|
Medical proof of rape existed but procedural irregularities and unreliable testimony defeated conviction against the appellant.
* Criminal law – Rape – Medical evidence confirming sexual assault is not necessarily sufficient to convict a particular accused absent reliable linking evidence. * Evidence – Single witness/corroboration – Uncorroborated testimony may suffice in fit cases but must be credible; procedural irregularities can undermine reliability. * Procedure – Legality of searches/arrests – Midnight raid without warrant or community officials may taint prosecution case. * Burden of proof – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
17 December 2012 |
|
Refusal to recuse plus failure to identify stolen property led to quashing of armed robbery conviction.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Requirement to prove taking of property by violence or threat and possession/identification of stolen property – failure to tender stolen phone and to identify sim card undermines conviction. * Evidence – Identification of property – failure to verify sim card or give mobile number. * Criminal procedure – Accused silence – adverse inference not available where prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. * Judicial impartiality – Recusal/recusal requests – refusal to withdraw where reasonable apprehension of bias exists results in miscarriage of justice.
|
12 December 2012 |
|
The applicant’s challenge to an eight-year manslaughter sentence fails; sentence not manifestly excessive.
* Criminal law – sentencing – manslaughter – reduction from statutory life term to fixed term for mitigating factors; appellate intervention only where sentence is manifestly excessive, inadequate, based on wrong principle, overlooks material factor, or is illegal.
|
11 December 2012 |
|
An eight-year manslaughter sentence was upheld because the trial judge properly considered mitigating factors.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Mitigating factors – Appellate interference limited to manifestly excessive/inadequate sentence, wrong principle, overlooked material factor or illegality.
|
11 December 2012 |
|
Appeal allowed because unsafe night-time single-witness identification and unaddressed inconsistencies vitiated the conviction.
Criminal law – Visual identification – single-witness night identification; Waziri Amani criteria – necessity of careful analysis of surrounding circumstances; PF3 admissibility – requirement under s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act to call medical officer; Effect of materially inconsistent prior statements on witness credibility; Prosecution’s duty to explain contradictions.
|
11 December 2012 |
|
Single night-time identification by an impeached witness was unsafe; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Single witness night-time identification under traumatic surprise – Waziri Amani guidelines on factors to be considered.
* Evidence – Improper admission of PF3 in breach of section 240(3) – PF3 expunged.
* Evidence – Prior inconsistent police statements affecting witness credibility – prosecution’s failure to explain contradictions.
* Criminal procedure – Conviction unsafe where identification and credibility unresolved – conviction quashed.
|
11 December 2012 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification of stolen phones and recovery of cash were insufficient, rendering the verdict unsafe.
Armed robbery – identification of stolen property – insufficient description of distinctive marks on mobile phones – recent possession doctrine inapplicable; unexplained non-recovery of alleged cash – appellate intervention where conviction unsafe; evidence standard: identification beyond reasonable doubt required.
|
10 December 2012 |
|
High Court wrongly summarily dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal under the wrong statute; matter remitted for full hearing.
Criminal procedure – Summary rejection of appeal – Correct statutory basis is section 364(1) Criminal Procedure Act – Summary dismissal an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly – appellate court must peruse record and indicate so – improper to rely on section 28(1) Magistrates' Courts Act for subordinate court appeals – severe sentence (life imprisonment) requires full hearing.
|
10 December 2012 |
|
High Court wrongly summarily dismissed criminal appeal under incorrect statute; appeal quashed and remitted for hearing on merits.
Criminal appeal – summary dismissal – Wrong reliance on s.28(1) Magistrates' Courts Act – Correct provision s.364(1) Criminal Procedure Act – Principles from Iddi Kondo: summary dismissal is exceptional, requires perusal of record and careful exercise – severe sentence (life imprisonment) militates against summary rejection – appeal remitted for hearing on merits.
|
10 December 2012 |
|
Rape conviction quashed for inadmissible medical report and prosecutorial failure to call a key witness.
Criminal law — Rape — Consent must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; Evidence — PF3 inadmissible without s.240(3) compliance; Prosecution duty — failure to call material witness attracts adverse inference.
|
7 December 2012 |
|
Failure to comply with s.240(3) CPA and omission to call a material witness warranted quashing the rape conviction.
* Criminal law – Rape – consent as essential ingredient – prosecution must prove lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal procedure – Admissibility of medical reports – non-compliance with s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act renders PF3 of no evidentiary value.
* Criminal procedure – Prosecution duty – failure to call material witnesses may attract adverse inference.
* Evidence – unexplained delay in arrest may undermine prosecution’s case.
|
7 December 2012 |
|
Killing during a quarrel lacked malice aforethought; murder conviction substituted with manslaughter.
Criminal law – murder v. manslaughter – malice aforethought – provocation and fights negating malice – appellate substitution of conviction and sentence.
|
6 December 2012 |
|
|
6 December 2012 |
|
Conviction quashed where recent possession and ownership were not satisfactorily proved; sentence also illegal.
Criminal law – Burglary and stealing – Doctrine of recent possession – requirement to prove ownership, recent theft and linkage to accused – Identification of stolen property – admissibility and sufficiency of receipts and witness evidence – Appellate interference with concurrent findings – Illegal sentence under s.170(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Act.
|
6 December 2012 |
|
Killing in a quarrel/fight negates malice aforethought and warrants reduction of murder conviction to manslaughter.
Criminal law – Murder v manslaughter – Malice aforethought – Provocation/fight – Standard of proof – Eyewitness limitations (child witness).
|
5 December 2012 |
|
Non‑compliance with statutory interview time limits vitiates a cautioned statement; without it circumstantial evidence failed to sustain conviction.
Criminal procedure – admissibility of cautioned statement – statutory interview period under sections 50 and 51 Criminal Procedure Act – non‑compliance vitiates confession; circumstantial evidence – sufficiency to sustain conviction; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
|
5 December 2012 |
|
|
4 December 2012 |
|
|
4 December 2012 |
| September 2012 |
|
|
Non‑compliance with s.240(3) CPA renders PF3 inadmissible and inconsistent victim evidence can make a conviction unsafe.
Criminal procedure – Admission of PF3 – Compliance with section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act required before admitting medical report; failure to comply renders PF3 inadmissible. Sexual offences – Corroboration is a practice not a rule of law; conviction may rest on uncorroborated victim testimony if credible. Witness credibility – Material inconsistencies in identification and facts may render a conviction unsafe. Appeal – Appellate court power to quash conviction where evidence is unreliable.
|
11 September 2012 |
| March 2012 |
|
|
Conviction on recent possession quashed where prosecution failed to prove ownership or properly identify the recovered mobile phone.
* Criminal law – doctrine of recent possession – requires positive identification of the stolen item and proof it is the item charged; prosecution bears the burden to connect recovered property to the offence. * Evidence – identification of property – necessity of serial numbers, receipts, distinguishing features, and proper exhibit description. * Criminal procedure – collective admission of exhibits and failure to resolve defence evidence undermines fair trial.
|
30 March 2012 |
|
Conviction based on unproven recent possession is unsafe; identification and cautioned statement discredited.
Criminal law – robbery with violence; visual identification and admissibility of cautioned statement; doctrine of recent possession – requirements and necessity of proof of search and recovery; hearsay insufficient to establish possession.
|
30 March 2012 |
|
Procedural non‑compliance in the preliminary hearing rendered it illegal, prompting quashing of conviction and ordering of retrial.
Criminal procedure – Preliminary hearing – Mandatory compliance with s.192(3) Criminal Procedure Act (reading/explaining memorandum to accused, accused's signature) – defence counsel cannot substitute for accused – non‑compliance vitiates preliminary hearing – effect on s.192(4) deemed proof – retrial ordered in interests of justice.
|
29 March 2012 |
|
Preliminary Hearing defects (failure to read/explain memorandum and lack of accused's signature) vitiated proceedings; retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – Preliminary Hearing – non‑compliance with s.192(3) (reading/explaining memorandum and accused's signature) – counsel cannot admit facts for accused – effect of expunging Preliminary Hearing on s.192(4) deemed‑proved matters – retrial ordered in interests of justice; revisional powers under s.4(2) AJA.
|
29 March 2012 |
|
Victim’s credible testimony can sustain a rape conviction, but sentencing must reflect judicial determination of accused’s age.
Criminal law – Rape – Victim’s testimony as best evidence; Evidence Act s.127(7) – conviction may rest on victim’s uncorroborated testimony; Criminal Procedure – admissibility/role of PF3; Sentencing – necessity to judicially determine accused’s age where material to punishment; Penal Code s.131(2)(a) – treatment of offenders aged 18 or under; Appellate practice – restraint in disturbing concurrent credibility findings; Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(2) – revisional powers to correct illegal sentence.
|
28 March 2012 |
|
Victim’s credible testimony alone sustained a rape conviction; sentence set aside due to doubt about the appellant’s age.
* Criminal law – Rape – Victim’s evidence – Complainant’s solitary credible testimony can suffice to convict under s.127(7) Evidence Act.
* Appeal – Concurrent findings of fact – Appellate deference to trial court credibility findings unless clear misapprehension or legal error.
* Evidence – PF3 and corroboration – absence/expungement of PF3 immaterial where victim’s testimony is credible.
* Sentencing – Age uncertainty – Where age affects criminal responsibility, court must judicially determine age; benefit of doubt to accused under s.131(2)(a).
* Appellate Jurisdiction – Exercise of revisional powers under s.4(2) AJA to correct sentencing illegality.
|
28 March 2012 |
|
District Court lacked jurisdiction to try scheduled economic offences without DPP consent; convictions quashed and release ordered.
* Criminal procedure – jurisdiction – scheduled economic offences – Economic and Organised Crimes Control Act (First Schedule) – prior consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions and certificate of transfer required for subordinate court prosecution; absence renders proceedings a nullity. * Appellate jurisdiction – s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – power to revise, quash proceedings and set aside convictions where jurisdictional defects exist.
|
28 March 2012 |
|
Trial of scheduled economic offences in subordinate court without DPP consent is jurisdictionally invalid; convictions quashed.
* Criminal procedure – Jurisdiction – Scheduled economic offences – Prior consent of Director of Public Prosecutions and certificate of transfer required for prosecution in subordinate court; trial without such consent is nullity; Court of Appeal may invoke s.4(2) AJA to revise and quash proceedings; retrial left to DPP under Article 59B(2); immediate release ordered pending lawful detention.
|
28 March 2012 |
|
District Court lacked jurisdiction to try scheduled economic offences without DPP consent; proceedings quashed and sentences set aside.
* Criminal law – Jurisdiction – Economic and Organised Crimes Control Act – scheduled offences requiring DPP consent and certificate of transfer before prosecution in subordinate courts. * Arms and Ammunition Act – unlawful possession of firearms/ammunition as scheduled economic offences at time of prosecution. * Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(2) – revisional powers to quash proceedings and set aside sentences where trial conducted without jurisdiction. * Constitution Art.59B(2) – retrial left to DPP's discretion.
|
28 March 2012 |
|
Reported
High Court single-judge determination of a Court-martial appeal was void for lack of the three-judge quorum; decision quashed.
Criminal procedure – Court-martial appeals – Appeals lie to the Court-martial Appeal Court constituted by High Court judges – quorum of three judges required (C.143, C.146 Cap.192 R.E.2002); non-compliance renders decision a nullity; estoppel cannot validate statutory defects.
|
28 March 2012 |
|
A single High Court judge cannot hear a court-martial appeal; statutory three-judge quorum is mandatory, else decision is null.
* Military law – appeals from Court-martial – statutory route under section C.143(1)(a) – Court-martial Appeal Court constituted by High Court judges under C.146 – three-judge quorum required.
* Constitutional/administrative law – mandatory statutory composition of appellate courts – non-compliance renders proceedings a nullity.
* Procedural law – estoppel cannot be invoked to validate non-compliance with statutory duties (no estoppel against statute).
|
28 March 2012 |
|
Victim's credible testimony upheld conviction, but sentence set aside due to unresolved uncertainty as to accused's age.
Criminal law – Rape – Victim’s testimony as sole basis for conviction under s.127(7) Evidence Act; appellate restraint on disturbing concurrent credibility findings; sentencing illegality where accused’s age is uncertain – application of s.131(2)(a) Penal Code; revisional powers under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act to correct illegal sentence.
|
27 March 2012 |
|
Appeal dismissed: identification and victim’s testimony (with medical corroboration) sufficiently established gang rape.
* Criminal law – Sexual offences – Gang rape – Sufficiency of complainant’s evidence and requirement for corroboration.
* Criminal law – Identification – Visual identification standards, circumstances favouring correct identification (short distance, opportunity to observe).
* Evidence – Medical evidence as corroboration in rape cases; minor discrepancies in dates immaterial to probative value.
* Procedure – Failure to call potentially helpful witnesses not necessarily fatal where other evidence is strong.
|
26 March 2012 |
|
Assessors' exclusion rendered several exhibits inadmissible, but untainted circumstantial evidence upheld murder convictions.
Criminal procedure – assessors – exclusion of assessors during reception of evidence renders such evidence inadmissible; Evidence – cautioned statements and exhibits improperly admitted in absence of assessors must be expunged; Criminal law – murder – circumstantial evidence, recent possession, flight, concealment and leading police to body can prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; Criminal law – aiding and abetting (s.22(1)(c)) – presence, conduct and failure to dissociate can establish liability (Zuberi principle).
|
26 March 2012 |
|
Despite improperly admitted confessions, untainted circumstantial evidence proved the applicants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal procedure – trial with assessors – assessors must hear all evidence; evidence received in their absence must be re‑led when recalled. * Admissibility – cautioned statements and exhibits improperly received without assessors expunged. * Evidence – circumstantial evidence and conduct (flight, concealment, leading to body) can sustain murder conviction. * Criminal liability – section 22(1)(c) Penal Code – aiding and abetting; presence plus conduct/dissociation assessed for complicity.
|
26 March 2012 |
|
Reported
Assessor exclusion rendered several exhibits inadmissible, yet untainted circumstantial evidence sustained the appellants' murder convictions.
* Criminal procedure – trial with assessors – exclusion of assessors during reception of evidence – trial within a trial – basis for expunging exhibits admitted in assessors' absence. * Evidence – cautioned/confessional statements – admissibility and effect. * Circumstantial evidence – possession of victim's property, flight, discovery of body, admissions – sufficiency to prove murder. * Criminal liability – section 22(1)(c) Penal Code – aiding and abetting/principal in second degree – conduct and failure to dissociate.
|
26 March 2012 |
|
Improperly admitted cautioned statements were expunged, but convictions upheld on recent possession and corroborative evidence.
* Criminal procedure – admissibility of cautioned statements – compliance with s.50 and s.57 CPA – trial‑within‑trial and role of assessors (s.265 CPA).
* Evidence Act – s.34B admissibility conditions cumulative; s.122 on drawing inferences; co‑accused statements and requirement for corroboration (s.33).
* Criminal law – doctrine of recent possession as supporting inference of guilt in robbery‑murder; sufficiency of identification of stolen property.
|
26 March 2012 |
|
Improperly admitted cautioned/statements were expunged, but recent possession and corroborative conduct sustained convictions; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – admissibility of cautioned statements – compliance with CPA ss.50,57 and s.265 procedure; Evidence Act s.34B – cumulative conditions for hearsay/statements; assessors and trial-within-trial procedure; identification of stolen property and doctrine of recent possession; corroboration of co-accused statements and sufficiency of evidence to support conviction.
|
26 March 2012 |
|
|
23 March 2012 |
|
|
23 March 2012 |
|
Trial combining economic and non‑economic offences without DPP consent is null; convictions quashed and appellants released.
Criminal procedure — Jurisdiction — Economic offences — Unlawful possession of arms and ammunition as scheduled economic offences; DPP's consent (s.26(1)) and certificate of transfer (s.12(3)/(4)) required for trial in subordinate courts; combining economic and non-economic offences without DPP certificate renders proceedings nullity; convictions and sentences quashed; release ordered; matter remitted to DPP discretion.
|
23 March 2012 |
|
Reported
Conviction quashed where extra-judicial statement was admitted without assessors and exhibits lacked lawful search and chain of custody.
Criminal law — Murder; admissibility of extra-judicial statements — mandatory presence and involvement of assessors — exclusion renders admission illegal and expungeable; Search and seizure — absence of search warrant, search in accused's absence and unsecured premises; Chain of custody — necessity to account for custody of exhibits to establish authenticity; Circumstantial evidence — must irresistibly point to accused; Prosecutorial discretion as to whom to charge.
|
23 March 2012 |
|
Reported
Appeal dismissed: witness identification, corroborated by flight and common intention, supported conviction and death sentence.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification must exclude possibilities of mistaken identity (Waziri Amani) – Factors: prior acquaintance, uncovered face, adequate lighting, proximity and duration of observation; Flight and evasive conduct as corroboration; Prosecutorial discretion on witness calling; Application of section 23 Penal Code (common intention).
|
19 March 2012 |
|
Applicant's visual identification, corroborated by flight, was sufficient to uphold conviction and sentence.
Criminal law – visual identification – reliability factors: prior acquaintance, illumination, proximity and duration; corroboration by flight and evasive conduct; common intention (Penal Code s.23).
|
19 March 2012 |
|
A criminal appeal from a Primary Court is incompetent without a High Court certificate under section 6(7)(b) AJA.
* Appellate procedure – third appeals in criminal matters originating in Primary Court – mandatory requirement of a High Court certificate under s.6(7)(b) AJA.
* Criminal procedure – competence of appeal – failure to obtain certificate renders appeal incompetent.
* Procedural compliance – jurisdictional preconditions for instituting appeal to Court of Appeal.
|
19 March 2012 |
|
A criminal appeal from a Primary Court is incompetent without a High Court certificate under section 6(7)(b) AJA.
* Appellate procedure – Appellate Jurisdiction Act, s.6(7)(b) – Criminal appeals originating in Primary Courts require High Court certificate that a point of law is involved before appeal to Court of Appeal – Failure to obtain certificate renders appeal incompetent – Appeal struck out.
|
19 March 2012 |
|
Conviction quashed: identification unreliable and chain of custody of stolen items defective, making the conviction unsafe.
* Criminal law – Identification – visual identification at night – Waziri Amani criteria – requirements for favourable identification conditions.
* Evidence – recent possession – requirements for nexus, positive identification of stolen property and chain of custody.
* Procedure – right to cross-examine – record may dispel complaints of denial of opportunity.
* Charge – distinction between burglary (dwelling house at night) and breaking into a building (non-dwelling) – curable defects under Criminal Procedure Act.
|
19 March 2012 |
|
Conviction unsafe due to weak visual identification and defective chain of custody; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – visual identification at night – contradictions and unfavourable conditions undermine reliability.
* Criminal procedure – Right to cross-examine – record may refute claim of denial.
* Criminal law – Charge formulation – distinction between housebreaking and burglary (dwelling requirement).
* Evidence – Exhibits and chain of custody – identification of stolen property must precede tendering exhibits.
* Doctrine of recent possession – requirements include possession, nexus with accused, positive ownership identification and recent theft.
|
19 March 2012 |
|
The applicant's revision application was struck out for incompetence due to incorrect statutory citations and improper affidavit grounds.
* Criminal procedure – Revision v appeal – competency of revision application where appeal is appropriate; incorrect citation of enabling provisions (Rules vs sections) renders application incompetent; affidavit must contain proper grounds for revision not merely for extension of time; ignorance of law by a lay litigant is no defence.
|
14 March 2012 |
|
Applicant's revision application with incorrect statutory citations and improper supporting grounds was incompetent and struck out.
* Civil procedure – Competence of application – Revisional jurisdiction – Requirement to cite correct enabling provisions (rules vs sections) – Revision not an alternative to appeal – Supporting affidavit must contain proper grounds for revision – Ignorance of law by a lay applicant not a defence.
|
13 March 2012 |