|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2014 |
|
|
An appeal instituted after the 60‑day rule 90(1) period without extension is time‑barred and was struck out.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Time limits – Rule 90(1) Court of Appeal Rules – appeal must be instituted within 60 days of lodging notice – failure to institute within 60 days without applying under rule 10 for extension renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out; Court may raise procedural non‑compliance suo motu; costs where defect raised by Court.
|
3 December 2014 |
|
Conviction for rape of a three‑year‑old upheld on corroborated evidence; compensation order set aside for lack of hearing on ability to pay.
* Criminal law – rape of a child – conviction based on flagrante delicto, corroborated eyewitness and medical evidence; proof of penetration in a toddler. * Evidence – single witness sufficiency and corroboration; not every discrepancy will defeat prosecution. * Procedure – compensation order requires assessment of accused’s means and right to be heard. * Sentencing – mandatory life imprisonment under section 131(3) upheld.
|
3 December 2014 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed due to inadequate circumstantial evidence and faulty summing up to assessors.
Criminal law – Murder – Circumstantial evidence — requirement that inculpatory facts exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; Evidence – Search and seizure — improperly conducted search vitiates recovered evidence; Criminal procedure – Dying declaration — need for corroboration where relied upon for conviction; Practice — inadequate summing up to assessors on vital legal point renders trial a nullity.
|
2 December 2014 |
| November 2014 |
|
|
A material variance between the charged date and prosecution evidence warrants acquittal and quashing of conviction.
Criminal law – material variance between charge and evidence regarding date of offence; particulars in charge are material; duty to amend charge and recall witnesses where dates differ; failure to cure variance results in acquittal and quashing of conviction.
|
28 November 2014 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause for a two-year delay and did not specify Rule 66 grounds; extension dismissed.
* Appeals and procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 – applicant must show good cause for delay; mere ignorance or prison constraints insufficient. * Review – Court of Appeal – Rule 66(1)(a)–(e) – review is exceptional, not automatic; applicant for extension must state and support which Rule 66 grounds will be relied upon.
|
28 November 2014 |
|
Applicant's uncorroborated prison-shortage claim failed to establish good cause for an extension of time.
Criminal procedure – extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – "good cause" – requirement for corroboration of institutional impediments – affidavit from prison authority; unsubstantiated assertions fatal to extension application.
|
28 November 2014 |
|
An appeal is incompetent and must be struck out if the notice of appeal is filed outside the extended time.
* Criminal procedure — Appeal competence — Notice of appeal — Time limits and extensions; failure to comply renders appeal incompetent. * Court Rules (Rule 68(1)/Rule 61) — Notice of appeal is mandatory to institute criminal appeal. * Procedural compliance — Memorandum of appeal filed outside time ordered by court — consequences: appeal struck out.
|
28 November 2014 |
|
Court granted leave to withdraw an application for extension of time to file a review where the respondent raised no objection.
* Civil procedure – Withdrawal of application – Leave to withdraw – Grant of leave under Rule 58(3) where respondent raises no objection; * Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 66 (extension of time to apply for review) and Rule 58(3) (withdrawal of application).
|
27 November 2014 |
|
Court granted leave to withdraw an application for extension of time to file a review, allowing refile.
Civil procedure — Application for extension of time (Rule 66) — Withdrawal of application with leave to refile — Grant of leave where respondent does not object — Rule 58(3) Court Rules.
|
27 November 2014 |
|
A subordinate court’s trial and conviction for an economic offence without DPP consent is a nullity and must be quashed.
* Criminal law – Jurisdiction – Economic offences – Requirement of DPP’s prior consent under section 26(1) of the Economic and Organised Crimes Control Act – absence vitiates trial. * Transfer certificates under section 12(3) do not substitute for DPP consent. * Appellate revisional powers (Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(2)) to quash null proceedings and order release. * Consequence: convictions and sentences obtained without required DPP consent are set aside.
|
27 November 2014 |
|
Extension of time to file review denied where applicant failed to specify the rule 66(1) grounds required by the Rules.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time (rule 10) – Application for review – Requirement to state one or more grounds of review under rule 66(1) – Failure to do so merits dismissal.* Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – rule 66(1) strictly limits review grounds – safeguards against re-opening appeals.
|
27 November 2014 |
|
Prisoners have no automatic right to review; extension of time requires showing good cause and specifying grounds under the Rules.
* Criminal procedure – review – no automatic right for prisoners to apply for review; review governed by Rule 66 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. * Civil procedure – extension of time – applicant must show 'good cause' under Rule 66(3) and specify grounds under Rule 48(1). * Insufficiency of general assertions or bare appeals to 'interest of justice' to constitute good cause.
|
26 November 2014 |
|
Daylight identification and unchallenged evidence upheld; cautioned statement excluded but conviction affirmed.
* Criminal law – armed robbery – identification evidence – daylight, prior acquaintance and time to observe support reliable identification.
* Evidence – admissibility of cautioned statements – requirement to apply s.169 Criminal Procedure Act before admitting evidence obtained in alleged contravention of statutory rights.
* Procedure – non-production of PF3 – absence not fatal where other uncontroverted medical and oral/confessional evidence exists.
* Appellate practice – appellate court will not consider issues not raised or decided in lower courts.
|
24 November 2014 |
|
Family-witness evidence, expunged PF3, and absence of in-camera trial did not overturn statutory rape conviction.
* Criminal law – sexual offences – statutory rape – proof of victim’s age; family witnesses’ credibility. * Evidence – medical report (PF3) – admission under s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act – right to summon/report author – illegal admission and expunction. * Criminal procedure – requirement to sit in camera in sexual offences involving children – proceedings not automatically void absent miscarriage of justice. * Confession – cautioned statement admitted voluntarily and corroborative.
|
21 November 2014 |
| May 2014 |
|
|
Conviction quashed and retrial ordered due to improperly admitted confession and medical report.
Criminal law – admissibility of cautioned/confessional statements – requirement for trial-within-a-trial; Criminal Procedure Act s.240(3) – formal requirements for medical reports; Visual identification – dangers of single eyewitness evidence without parade; Trial irregularity – nullity and appropriate remedy is retrial.
|
12 May 2014 |