|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| April 2016 |
|
|
A misdescribed notice of motion failing to identify the correct judicial capacity is incurably defective and struck out.
Court of Appeal — Extension of time — Rule 10 discretionary — Requirement to cite specific rule (Rule 48(1)) — Form of notice of motion (Rule 48(2), Form A) — Misidentification of judicial officer renders notice incurably defective — Hearsay objection in affidavit not reached.
|
14 April 2016 |
|
Defective charge citing wrong/non‑existent Penal Code provisions rendered trial unfair; conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure — Defective charge sheet; rape — particulars required under section 130(2)(a)–(e) and reference to correct Penal Code provisions; accused’s right to know nature of charge; unfair trial and nullity; remedy — quash conviction, set aside sentence, retrial ordered.
|
14 April 2016 |
|
PF3 expunged for noncompliance with s.240(3) CPA, but victim and corroborating witness proved rape beyond reasonable doubt.
Evidence – Rape – identification: victim and nearby witness who found accused in flagrante delicto; moonlight and familiarity reduce risk of mistaken identity. Evidence – Medical report (PF3) – inadmissible where section 240(3) CPA not complied with; PF3 expunged if doctor not produced for cross-examination. Evidence – Contradictions – minor inconsistencies do not vitiate prosecution case unless they go to the root of the matter. Criminal appeal – conviction upheld where remaining credible testimony proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
14 April 2016 |
|
Application for extension of time to file reference dismissed for failure to show sufficient cause for 31-day delay.
Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 10 (extension of time) – requirement to show good cause; Rule 62(1) – reference against single-justice decision must be applied for informally to the Registrar within seven days. Affidavit requirements – applicant must state reasons for delay; omission is fatal. Precedent – Fadhili Yahaya v. Republic applied.
|
13 April 2016 |
|
A notice of appeal that fails to state the correct date of the impugned judgment is defective and renders the appeal incompetent.
Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Court of Appeal Rules 2009, Rule 68(1),(2) and (7) – Form B requirement to state correct date of impugned judgment – Incorrect date in notice renders it defective – Defective notice renders appeal incompetent and is struck out.
|
13 April 2016 |
|
Appeal struck out because the notice of appeal failed to state the correct date of the High Court judgment.
Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 68(1),(2) and sub‑rule 7 — notice of appeal must state correct date of judgment; defective notice renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
13 April 2016 |
|
Proceedings heard by a magistrate without a High Court transfer order under s45(2) are null and must be remitted for proper hearing.
Magistrates' Courts Act (Cap 11) s45(1)&(2) – requirement of a formal High Court transfer order to vest a resident magistrate with extended jurisdiction to hear appeals. Jurisdictional defect – proceedings heard without statutory transfer order are a nullity. Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Cap 141) s4(2) – Court of Appeal’s power to revise and declare proceedings null and remit for proper hearing.
|
13 April 2016 |
|
|
13 April 2016 |
|
Court upheld one murder conviction based on credible relative eyewitnesses and rejected alibi, but quashed the second count for insufficient evidence.
Criminal law – Murder – Identification and credibility of eyewitnesses – Relative witnesses competent; credibility for trial judge to assess. Criminal procedure – Alibi – duty to summon defence witnesses; accused’s failure to call witnesses may amount to abandonment of defence. Criminal procedure – Preliminary hearing – compliance with section 192(3) CPA; memorandum read and signed. Criminal procedure – Assessors – limits on questions and need for proper summing-up; irregularities not necessarily fatal absent prejudice. Sentencing – multiple murder counts – Court may quash counts where evidence insufficient; death sentence execution only once.
|
12 April 2016 |
|
A notice of appeal that fails to state the correct date of the challenged judgment is defective and the appeal is incompetent.
Criminal procedure – Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 68(2) and Rule 68(7) – Notice of appeal must correctly state date of challenged judgment – Failure to state correct date renders notice defective and appeal incompetent.
|
12 April 2016 |
|
Absence of a High Court transfer order under s45(2) renders proceedings before a magistrate with extended jurisdiction a nullity.
Magistrates' Courts Act s45(1)-(2) — requirement of High Court transfer order for resident magistrate with extended jurisdiction; jurisdictional defect — proceedings a nullity; Appellate Jurisdiction Act s4(2) — exercise of revisionary powers and remittal for proper hearing.
|
12 April 2016 |
|
Plea of guilty was unequivocal; appeal limited to sentence legality and dismissed as sentence lawful.
Criminal law – plea of guilty – unequivocal plea – ingredients of armed robbery (s.287A Penal Code) – appeals after guilty plea limited to legality of sentence (s.360 Criminal Procedure Act) – new grounds on second appeal generally not entertained – procedural irregularity in judgment title not fatal.
|
12 April 2016 |
|
Appeal struck out for incomplete record (missing CMA proceedings) and time‑barred High Court revision under ELRA.
Employment law – Revision of CMA arbitration award – Section 91(1) ELRA – six‑week limitation period for setting aside award. Civil procedure – Appeals – record completeness – mandatory inclusion of CMA proceedings under Rule 96(2)(c) of the Court of Appeal Rules. Civil procedure – Incompetent appeal – striking out under Rule 4(2)(a) where primary documents are omitted. Costs – employment causes – no order as to costs when appeal struck out.
|
11 April 2016 |
|
|
11 April 2016 |
|
A defective notice failing to identify the decision and conviction renders a criminal appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Criminal procedure — Notice of appeal — requirements under Rule 68(2) and (7) — necessity to identify the decision and particulars of conviction — defective notice renders appeal incompetent — appeal struck out.
|
11 April 2016 |
|
A defective notice misidentifying the High Court decision and conviction renders a criminal appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Criminal procedure – Appeal competency – Valid notice of appeal is fundamental; must identify High Court decision and briefly state conviction/sentence (Rule 68(2),(7) CAR 2009). Procedural law – Defective notice – Misstatement of case number, judge, offence or sentence renders appeal incompetent. Appeals practice – Court will strike out appeal lacking a valid notice rather than determine merits despite appellant’s explanation.
|
11 April 2016 |
|
Assessors cross‑examining witnesses and improper summing up vitiated the trial; conviction quashed and retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – assessors’ role – assessors must not cross‑examine witnesses; cross‑examination by assessors vitiates trial for bias; improper summing up and failure to give reasons for departing from assessors’ unanimous opinion amount to incurable irregularity – conviction and sentence quashed; retrial ordered.
|
11 April 2016 |
|
A notice of appeal bearing the wrong judgment date is incurably defective and renders the appeal incompetent.
Appeal procedure — Notice of appeal — Rule 68(2) & Form B — requirement to state correct judgment date; variance between notice and record is incurably defective; appeal incompetent — appeal struck out.
|
11 April 2016 |
|
An incorrect judgment date in a notice of appeal renders the notice incurably defective and the appeal is struck out.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Notice of appeal – Requirement to state correctly the date of the judgment appealed against per Rule 68(2) and Form B – Variance of dates renders notice incurably defective – appeal struck out.
|
11 April 2016 |
|
|
9 April 2016 |
|
Conviction for statutory rape upheld on the complainant's reliable testimony and corroborating circumstances despite minor inconsistencies.
Criminal law – Statutory rape – Proof of offence may rest on victim's testimony; age and pregnancy corroborated by surrounding circumstances. Evidence – Uncorroborated child/victim testimony admissible under s.127(7) Law of Evidence Act if court satisfied of truthfulness. Evidence – Minor contradictions (e.g., circumcision) do not necessarily vitiate conviction; assess discrepancies in context. Procedure – Absence of PF3 does not automatically defeat proof of pregnancy where other evidence establishes the fact.
|
8 April 2016 |
|
|
8 April 2016 |
|
|
8 April 2016 |
|
Six‑week time for revision under s91(1)(a) ERLA runs from service of the arbitration award on the applicant; award must be served.
Employment law – limitation period for revising CMA award under section 91(1)(a) ERLA – time runs from service of award on applicant; procedural duty to serve awards – legislative inadequacy and directive to require notification and service; High Court misdirection in treating time from issue date; revision remitted for hearing.
|
8 April 2016 |
|
Appellant’s statutory rape conviction upheld on victim’s testimony and pregnancy evidence.
Criminal law – Statutory rape – Proof of sexual intercourse and victim’s age; best evidence of the victim; absence of PF3 not fatal; corroboration not required under s.127(7) Law of Evidence Act; minor contradictions immaterial.
|
6 April 2016 |
| January 2016 |
|
|
Omission to swear prosecution witnesses vitiated the trial; weak identification and misapplied recent-possession doctrine led to quashing convictions.
Criminal procedure – failure to administer oath/affirmation to prosecution witnesses – evidence given without oath has no evidential value – trial rendered a nullity; Visual identification – Waziri Amani criteria – insufficiency of identification evidence; Recent possession – improper reliance where recovered items not properly identified; Retrial – Fatehali Manji principles – not ordered where it would unfairly advantage prosecution.
|
1 January 2016 |