|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2010 |
|
|
Prison typist/typewriter delay, when certified and unchallenged, can constitute good cause to extend time to appeal.
Criminal procedure — extension of time to appeal — "good cause" under s.361(2) — delay caused by prison typist/typewriter malfunction — certified affidavit and absence of counter-affidavit — duties of officer-in-charge under Rule 75 — Court’s discretion under Rule 47 to grant extension.
|
13 December 2010 |
|
Section 372 empowers the High Court to entertain revision prompted by third parties; lack of locus standi was wrongly found.
Criminal procedure – Revision jurisdiction of the High Court under s.372 – "Any" criminal proceedings – Third-party locus standi – Distinction between civil and criminal appellate procedural rules (Rule 106).
|
2 December 2010 |
|
Failure to seek leave within 14 days and not prosecuting the appeal justified striking out the notice of appeal.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Striking out notice of appeal for non‑prosecution; Failure to seek leave under Rule 43(a) within 14 days; Application under Rule 82 to strike out notice; Effect of settlement on continuation of appeal.
|
2 December 2010 |
|
Section 372 confers broad High Court revision powers that permit third parties to invoke revision in criminal proceedings.
* Criminal procedure – Revision jurisdiction – s.372 Criminal Procedure Act – "any" criminal proceedings – High Court may exercise revision at the instance of third parties; locus standi of strangers to proceedings.
|
1 December 2010 |
| November 2010 |
|
|
Variance between charge and evidence cured; conviction upheld; insanity not shown; life sentence lawful.
* Criminal law – substitution/amendment of charge – section 234 Criminal Procedure Act – requirements and curability under section 388; * Criminal law – variance between charge and evidence – notice to accused and failure of justice; * Evidence – circumstantial and medical evidence plus admission sufficiency to prove sexual/unnatural offence beyond reasonable doubt; * Criminal law – insanity defence – threshold to trigger section 220(1) inquiry; * Sentencing – section 154 Penal Code – life sentence where victim under ten years.
|
29 November 2010 |
|
Failure to consider the appellant’s defence evidence was fatal, warranting quashing of conviction and sentence.
* Criminal law – Trial procedure – Duty of trial court to evaluate prosecution and defence evidence and to give reasons – Failure to consider defence fatal; appellate court cannot cure trial court's omission (s.312(1)).
|
29 November 2010 |
|
Variance between charge and evidence was curable; conviction was supported by admission and medical evidence and appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law — charge amendment — Section 234(1) Criminal Procedure — alteration permissible to meet evidence if no failure of justice and accused had notice from original charge. * Procedural irregularity — curable under Section 388 where no miscarriage of justice. * Evidence — circumstantial evidence, admission and medical report can sustain conviction. * Criminal law — insanity defence — material required to trigger section 220(1) inquiry. * Sentencing — life imprisonment lawful where victim under ten years under Penal Code provisions.
|
26 November 2010 |
|
Failure to prove service of notice of appeal and timely lodgment justified striking out the notice of appeal with costs.
* Civil procedure – service of documents – sufficiency of certificate of posting/registered mail as proof of service – Rule 20(7) and Rule 20(1) Court of Appeal Rules and Order V Rule 30 CPC.
* Appeals – compliance with time limits – service of notice of appeal within seven days (Rule 77(1)) and lodging record within 60 days (Rule 83(1)) – failure to comply without extension grounds for striking out.
|
26 November 2010 |
|
Court granted extension under Rule 47 for a prisoner-appellant to file a corrected Memorandum of Appeal within 21 days.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time – Rule 47 Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – granting extension to correct defective Memorandum of Appeal.
* Procedural fairness – effect of prisoner’s circumstances on litigation timeliness and document preparation.
* Appeal validity – challenge to a non-existent High Court judgment; remedial opportunity to file proper memorandum.
|
25 November 2010 |
|
Prison officials' failure to process prisoners' notices of intention to appeal constituted sufficient cause to extend time for appeal.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time to file notice of intention to appeal – "sufficient reason" where delay caused by prison officials' inaction. * Court of Appeal Rules, r.47 – discretion to grant extension in criminal matters without prior High Court application. * Prisoners' compliance – Rule 75(1) (notice to officer-in-charge) and officers' duty to process appeals.
|
25 November 2010 |
|
|
24 November 2010 |
|
|
24 November 2010 |
|
Appellant's confession, reliable recognition identification and fatal gunshot injuries proved murder; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Murder – proof beyond reasonable doubt; visual identification by recognition; admissibility of cautioned/confessional statement; alibi notice requirements under s.194 Criminal Procedure Act and exercise of discretion under s.194(6); malice aforethought from fatal gunshot injuries (s.200 Penal Code).
|
24 November 2010 |
|
Once good cause for delay is shown, extension to appeal must be granted; stay of execution applications are time-barred after 60 days.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time under section 361 – where good cause shown extension should be granted as of right; merits to be considered when appeal is properly before the court (section 364(1)).
* Civil procedure – stay of execution – limitation period fixed at 60 days from judgment; applications filed after that period are time-barred.
* Court Rules – silence on limitation periods does not prevent Court from applying its precedents fixing time limits; Rule 8 cannot be used retrospectively.
* Procedural competence – preliminary objections on time limits and rule compliance are fatal where established.
|
23 November 2010 |
|
|
22 November 2010 |
|
If delay to appeal is satisfactorily explained, extension under section 361 should be granted; merits decided post-admission.
Criminal Procedure Act s.361 – extension of time to appeal – once delay satisfactorily explained, extension should be granted; merits to be considered after admission under s.364(1). Right of appeal – constitutional protection. High Court jurisdiction – may not decide merits before admission.
|
22 November 2010 |
|
A guilty plea entered without narrated facts proving armed robbery’s violence element is infirm; conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
* Criminal procedure – guilty plea – requirements before recording plea – magistrate must explain essential elements and prosecutor must narrate facts (Adan v Republic).
* Substantive law – armed robbery – prosecution must prove use or threat of actual violence to obtain or retain property.
* Appeal – inadmissibility of reliance on witnesses who testified after conviction to validate an earlier plea.
|
18 November 2010 |
|
Appeal struck out because the notice of appeal was materially defective and therefore invalid.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – Notice of appeal – Requirement under Rule 68(1) that a notice of appeal must correctly and specifically identify the decision appealed against – Material defects (wrong application number, wrong date, wrong subject matter) render notice invalid – Incompetence and striking out of appeal.
|
18 November 2010 |
|
|
1 November 2010 |
| July 2010 |
|
|
An appeal is incompetent and will be struck out if the record lacks a properly dated, signed and valid decree.
Civil procedure — Record of appeal — Mandatory inclusion of decree (Rule 89(1), Court of Appeal Rules) — Decree requirements — Order XX, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Act — Proper dating, signature and form — Invalid decree renders appeal incompetent — Appeal struck out.
|
23 July 2010 |
|
Daylight identification plus prompt recovery of weapon and money upheld convictions for armed robbery.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Visual identification in daylight – Waziri Amanu principles – Recovery of weapon in freshly dug soil and prompt recovery of stolen money – Sufficiency of identification without parade.
|
23 July 2010 |
|
|
22 July 2010 |
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction where application for leave to appeal out of time cited no enabling provision; proceedings quashed.
* Criminal procedure – leave to appeal out of time – chamber application which cites no enabling provision – renders proceedings incompetent and a nullity.
* Non‑citation or wrong citation of enabling provision – principle applicable in criminal proceedings.
* Appellate jurisdiction – exercise of revisional powers (s.4(2) AJA) to quash High Court proceedings; striking out incompetent appeal (Court Rules r.4(2)(a)).
|
22 July 2010 |
|
Failure to cite an enabling provision renders an application incompetent; High Court proceedings quashed, appellant may reapply.
Criminal procedure – Leave to appeal out of time – Application not citing enabling statutory provision – Non-citation renders proceedings incompetent and a nullity – Principle from civil procedure applicable to criminal matters – Revisionary power under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Striking out under Court Rules 2009 r.4(2)(a).
|
22 July 2010 |
|
Failure to record voire dire of a child witness renders evidence unsworn, requiring corroboration; conviction quashed.
Evidence Act s.127(2) – voir dire for child witness – failure to record proceedings – unsworn child evidence requiring corroboration; PF3 medical evidence showing sodomy not identifying assailant — lack of independent corroboration renders conviction unsafe.
|
22 July 2010 |
|
|
22 July 2010 |
|
Non‑compliance with s240(3) led to PF3 being expunged, but the minor's admission upheld the rape conviction.
Criminal law – Rape of a girl under 18 (s130(2)(e)) – consent irrelevant; Criminal Procedure – s240(3) non‑compliance requires expunging PF3; Sufficiency of complainant's admission; Sentencing – s131(2)(a) corporal punishment for offenders under 18; appellate release where time served meets justice.
|
21 July 2010 |
|
Court overturned convictions because night-time visual identification lacked the necessary detailed safeguards and was unsafe.
Criminal law — Visual identification at night — Reliability and necessary particulars (lighting, distance, duration, witness positioning, prior acquaintance); familiarity alone insufficient; appellate interference where misdirections/non-directions render concurrent findings unsafe.
|
21 July 2010 |
|
Reported
High Court may summarily reject an appeal under s.364(1)(c) where trial evidence leaves no reasonable doubt and the appeal is frivolous.
* Criminal procedure – summary rejection of appeals – section 364(1)(c) Criminal Procedure Act – exceptional power to be exercised sparingly after perusal of record.
* Identification – visual identification at night aided by moonlight and lamp, knowledge of accused as co-villagers – reliability and weight.
* Evidence – recovery of weapon linked to suspect as corroboration; weight of PF3 where doctor did not testify.
|
21 July 2010 |
|
The appellant's conviction quashed where night‑time visual identification lacked watertight supporting details.
* Criminal law – Evidence – Visual identification at night – Application of Waziri Amani principles – necessity to record time under observation, distance, lighting conditions, duration, prior knowledge and description. * Criminal procedure – Reliability of evidence given by members of same family and need for corroboration where appropriate. * Appellate review – Interference with concurrent findings where there are misdirections/non‑directions. * Revisional powers – Court of Appeal may quash co‑accused’s conviction where evidence is identical.
|
20 July 2010 |
|
An appeal was struck out because the record contained an improperly dated and unsigned decree, rendering it incompetent.
* Civil procedure – Appeal record – Requirement for copy of decree in record of appeal (Rule 89(1)(h) Court of Appeal Rules) – Decree must bear date of judgment and be signed (Order XX, Rule 7 Civil Procedure Act). * Invalid or improperly dated/signed decree renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out. * Costs – where Court played major role in disposing preliminary objection each party to bear own costs.
|
20 July 2010 |
|
Proceedings nullified against absent appellant for failure to take plea; second appellant's conviction upheld on ID and recent possession.
Criminal procedure – substituted charge not read to absent accused – non-compliance with s.228(1) vitiates proceedings; revisional powers under Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(2). Evidence – identification and doctrine of recent possession – concurrent findings upheld. Sentence – statutory minimum preserved.
|
20 July 2010 |
|
Conviction quashed where child’s evidence was admitted without required voir dire and remaining evidence failed to identify the perpetrator.
* Evidence — Child witnesses — Requirement of strict compliance with section 127(2) Evidence Act (voir dire on oath‑understanding and intelligence) before admitting evidence of a child of tender years. * Evidence — Corroboration — Medical evidence proving molestation does not identify perpetrator; hearsay from relatives insufficient to supply missing link. * Procedure — Importance of cross‑examination (s.147(1) Evidence Act) to test credibility of vulnerable witnesses.
|
19 July 2010 |
|
Failure to inform accused under s.240(3) required expunging PF3, but complainant’s admission proved rape of a girl under 18.
Criminal law – Rape – Sexual intercourse with a girl under 18 is rape under s.130(2)(e) – Complainant’s admission can suffice to convict – Criminal procedure – s.240(3) C.P.A. non‑compliance requires expungement of PF3 – Sentencing – s.131(2)(a) corporal punishment for first offender under 18, but court may consider time served.
|
15 July 2010 |
|
Failure to cite enabling law renders application incompetent; High Court proceedings quashed and appeal struck out.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time – application for leave to appeal out of time – requirement to cite enabling law when moving a court; non‑citation renders application incompetent and proceedings a nullity; Court’s revisional powers under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act; appeal struck out under Rule 4(2)(a) Court Rules, 2009.
|
15 July 2010 |
|
Reported
PF3 expunged for s.240(3) breach; complainant's admissions upheld conviction for rape of a minor; release ordered given time served.
Criminal law — Rape — intercourse with a girl under 18 constitutes rape irrespective of consent (s.130(2)(e) Penal Code); Criminal procedure — non‑compliance with s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act requires expunging PF3; Evidence — complainant's admissions can corroborate prosecution case; Sentencing — first offender under 18 ordinarily subject to corporal punishment only (s.131(2)(a)), but court may consider time served.
|
13 July 2010 |
|
An appeal involving armed robbery with a 30-year minimum sentence cannot be summarily rejected and must be heard on its merits.
Criminal procedure – summary rejection of appeals under section 364(1)(c) – power to be exercised sparingly; Criminal law – armed robbery – mandatory/minimum 30-year sentence – effect on suitability for summary dismissal; Evidence – identification in night-time conditions; Procedure – admission/weight of PF.3 without doctor’s evidence.
|
13 July 2010 |
|
Failure to cite enabling law renders High Court application for extension of time incompetent and proceedings are quashed.
Criminal procedure — Extension of time to file appeal — Requirement to cite enabling provision of law — Non-citation renders application incompetent and nullity — High Court not properly moved — Revisional powers under s.4(2) AJA to quash proceedings — Appeal struck out under Rule 4(2)(a) Court Rules, 2009.
|
12 July 2010 |
| June 2010 |
|
|
An appeal is incompetent and struck out if the record lacks a properly dated and signed decree as required by statute.
Civil procedure – Appeal competency – Record of appeal must include a copy of the decree properly dated and signed (Order XX, Rule 7; Rule 89(1)(h)) – Decree date must correspond to date judgment pronounced – Non‑compliance renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out; decree form requirements (Indian Code forms) – Costs: each party to bear own costs where Court disposed of preliminary objection.
|
23 June 2010 |