|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2015 |
|
|
Appellant’s possession of deceased’s motorcycle shortly after murder upheld doctrine of recent possession; conviction and sentence affirmed.
Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – Doctrine of recent possession; requirements for invoking recent possession; retracted extra‑judicial statement may be relied upon if corroborated; conviction sustainable only where evidence excludes reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
|
15 December 2015 |
| November 2015 |
|
|
Reasonable doubt as to place of attack and absence of malice aforethought led to substitution of murder conviction with manslaughter and five-year sentence.
Criminal law – burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence and bloodstains – insufficiency to conclusively establish place of attack; dying declaration and extra-judicial statement – exclusion for unreliability; malice aforethought – requirements and absence where attack may be spontaneous; appellate substitution of conviction – murder to manslaughter and sentencing.
|
6 November 2015 |
|
Severe assault accelerating death from intestinal obstruction supports murder conviction despite minor witness inconsistencies.
Criminal law – Causation: death by intestinal obstruction (volvulus) linked to external force; medical and eyewitness evidence considered together. Contradictions in witness testimony assessed for materiality; minor inconsistencies do not necessarily create reasonable doubt. Malice aforethought inferred from severity of assault, targeted blows to vulnerable area, tying and dragging victim, and flight – murder upheld; section 203(d) (acceleration of death) applicable.
|
6 November 2015 |
| October 2015 |
|
|
Non-compliance with section 214(1) CPA—successor magistrate’s unexplained takeover renders proceedings null and mandates retrial.
Criminal procedure – Section 214 Criminal Procedure Act – Successor magistrate must state reasons for taking over a trial – Failure to state reasons renders subsequent proceedings and judgment a nullity – Revisional powers to quash proceedings and order retrial; credit for time served.
|
12 October 2015 |
|
Custodial status alone did not establish good cause for a five‑year delay or an arguable ground for review; application dismissed.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Applicant in custody – custodial status and reliance on prison officers do not automatically constitute good cause for delay. * Review – Rule 66(1) Court Rules – review permitted only for manifest error on the face of the record, deprivation of hearing, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, or judgment procured illegally/fraudulently. * Application for extension to file review requires both good cause for delay and an arguable ground of review.
|
12 October 2015 |
|
Victim identification upheld; improperly admitted cautioned and extra‑judicial statements expunged; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Waziri Amani criteria: source/intensity of light, duration of observation, distance and prior acquaintance – visual identification upheld.* Criminal procedure – Admissibility of confessions/statements – trial court must conduct inquiry when voluntariness is objected to; failure to do so warrants expunging statements.* Judicial administration – Delay in delivering judgment – administrative fault but does not automatically invalidate judgment.
|
12 October 2015 |
|
Variance in victim identity and date in the charge sheet caused reasonable doubt, so conviction was quashed.
Criminal law – Rape – Variance between victim's name in charge sheet and evidence – Inconsistency of dates pleaded and given by witnesses – Prosecution duty to prove particulars in charge sheet – Material variances raise reasonable doubt – s.388 CPA inapplicable to cure such irregularities.
|
12 October 2015 |
|
|
11 October 2015 |
|
|
11 October 2015 |
|
|
11 October 2015 |
|
Charge defective for omitting person assaulted; identification evidence weak, proceedings quashed and retrial refused.
* Criminal law – robbery with violence – charge must specify person against whom force is directed under section 285 Penal Code – absence is fundamental defect. * Criminal procedure – incurable irregularity – section 388 CPA inapplicable to fundamental defect in charge. * Evidence – visual identification at night – requirements and insufficiency where no explanation or description given. * Retrial – not ordered where conviction set aside for procedural defect and prosecution evidence insufficient; retrial could enable filling gaps.
|
9 October 2015 |
|
A duplex charge combining items of different owners is fatally defective; weak identification evidence precludes retrial.
* Criminal law – Charge sheet – Section 132 Criminal Procedure Act – duplicity where one count combines items of different owners (duplex charge).
* Criminal law – Pleading – duty of prosecution and trial court to ensure charge is properly laid and perused.
* Evidence – Identification – inadequate identification at scene and lack of special marks on stolen items undermining prosecution’s case.
* Procedure – Defect in charge fatal and not curable under section 388 CPA; retrial may be refused where evidence is insufficient.
* Appellate jurisdiction – Section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – power to quash/nullify proceedings and set aside sentence.
|
9 October 2015 |
|
|
8 October 2015 |
|
An appeal dismissed under Rule 72(5) must be restored by application to the Court of Appeal, not by High Court extension.
* Appellate procedure – Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 72(1) and (5) – dismissal of appeal for failure to lodge memorandum of appeal – remedy to apply to Court of Appeal to restore dismissed appeal upon showing sufficient cause.
|
2 October 2015 |
|
Failure to cite the enabling rule in a notice of motion renders a review application incompetent and it was struck out.
* Criminal procedure — Review application — Requirement to cite specific enabling rule in a notice of motion (Rule 48(1) Court of Appeal Rules).
* Civil/criminal procedure — Review grounds — Rule 66(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
* Procedural competence — Failure to cite enabling provision renders application incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
2 October 2015 |
|
Murder conviction quashed for insufficient proof of place and malice; substituted manslaughter conviction with five-year sentence.
Criminal law — murder v manslaughter; burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence and place of attack; exclusion of dying declaration and extra-judicial statement; malice aforethought; appellate re-evaluation and substitution of conviction under revisional jurisdiction.
|
1 October 2015 |
| February 2015 |
|
|
Missing substituted/fresh charges and a judgment non‑compliant with s.312 rendered key parts of the trial record defective and the convictions unclear.
* Criminal procedure – substituted and fresh charges – absence of substituted/fresh charge sheets from the record – appellate consequences.
* Criminal procedure – plea – duty to take fresh plea on new or altered charges – failure renders trial (as to those charges) a nullity.
* Criminal procedure – judgment – requirement under s.312(1) & (2) to specify offence and section and to give reasons; non-compliance renders judgment bad in law.
* Appeals – where record is defective or judgment incomprehensible, appellate courts cannot properly uphold convictions.
|
12 February 2015 |