|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2017 |
|
|
Applicant granted leave under Rule 111 to amend notice of appeal to correct clerical errors.
Civil procedure — Amendment of notice of appeal — Rule 111 Court of Appeal Rules — Leave to amend to correct clerical/accidental errors — Attachment of document sought to be amended — When omission of judgment not fatal.
|
29 September 2017 |
| July 2017 |
|
|
Applicants failed to show good cause for a nine-year delay; extension of time application dismissed.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Application under Rule 10 – Lyamuya principles: account for days of delay; delay not inordinate; diligence required. * Ignorance of law or procedure is not good cause for extension. * Failure to produce evidence of alleged prior extension precludes reliance on it to excuse delay.
|
13 July 2017 |
|
Applicants failed to demonstrate good cause for an inordinate delay; extension of time to apply for review was refused.
* Criminal procedure – application for extension of time under Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules; requirement to show "good cause".
* Civil procedure principles (Lyamuya) applied: account for all days of delay; avoid inordinate delay; show diligence.
* Prisoners’ access to judgment – claim of late supply must be corroborated; ignorance of law insufficient to grant extension.
|
13 July 2017 |
|
|
12 July 2017 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause for extension; ignorance of law and bare assertion of perjury were insufficient.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – "good cause" requirement; ignorance of law not sufficient.
* Review applications – Rule 66(1) – extension to apply for review must show the intended review raises arguable grounds under Rule 66(1)(a) or (b).
* Procedural bars – striking out of prior application and unexplained delay do not constitute good cause.
|
12 July 2017 |
|
|
12 July 2017 |
|
|
11 July 2017 |
|
An inadequate charge failing to specify the exact sub‑section of section 130 rendered the trial and appeal nullities, requiring quashing and release of the appellant.
* Criminal procedure – Charge sheet sufficiency – section 132 Criminal Procedure Act – requirement to specify specific offence particulars and particular sub‑section(s). * Penal Code s.130 – multiple sub‑sections; need to identify exact sub‑section alleged. * Defective charge – prejudice to accused; incurable defect; proceedings and conviction a nullity. * Appellate jurisdiction – exercise of revisionary powers to quash proceedings and set aside conviction and sentence; retrial discretionary.
|
10 July 2017 |
|
The appellant's conviction for sodomy of a six‑year‑old was upheld; PF3 expunged; life sentence affirmed.
Criminal law – Sexual offences against a child – Evidence of a child of tender years – s127(7) Evidence Act; medical corroboration; improper tendering of PF3 by prosecutor – expunged; sentence enhancement under s154(2) Penal Code for victim under ten years.
|
6 July 2017 |
|
Failure to specify the particular subsection of section 130 in the charge sheet rendered the trial and appeal proceedings a nullity.
Criminal procedure – Charge sheet requirements – section 132 Criminal Procedure Act – necessity to specify particular subsection of an offence provision (section 130 Penal Code) – failure to state particulars renders proceedings a nullity; Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(2) – revisionary powers – quashing conviction and sentence; retrial discretionary.
|
6 July 2017 |
|
|
6 July 2017 |
|
Review dismissed: applicant failed to show manifest error or meet Rule 66(1) requirements; not a vehicle to re-argue appeal.
* Review – Court of Appeal – Rule 66(1) – limited and exceptional jurisdiction; grounds: manifest error on face of record, deprivation of hearing, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, fraud.
* Review procedure – Notice of Motion must be supported and amplified by affidavit; failure to do so renders application defective.
* Review not a substitute for appeal – cannot be used to re-argue issues already decided.
* Criminal evidence – hearsay, voire dire, and witness credibility previously considered and not shown to be manifest errors.
* Sentence – rape of a child under ten carries prescribed punishment of life imprisonment; not excessive in the circumstances.
|
6 July 2017 |
|
Non‑citation of the statutory provision for rape of a child under ten made the charge defective; conviction quashed and appellant released.
Criminal procedure — Charge sheet requirements — Must state specific offence and necessary particulars (s.132 CPA) — Non‑citation of s.131(3) Penal Code in a rape of child under ten constitutes a fatal defect rendering proceedings a nullity — Revisionary powers under s.4(2) AJA to quash conviction and set aside sentence — Retrial may be refused in interests of justice where retraumatisation or undue delay would result.
|
6 July 2017 |
|
Omission of the statutory provision for rape of a child from the charge-sheet rendered proceedings a nullity, prompting quashing and release.
Criminal law – Charge-sheet particulars – Requirement under section 132 Criminal Procedure Act to specify offence and necessary particulars; Penal Code section 131(3) – necessity to cite provisions applicable to rape of a child under ten; defective charge as nullity; appellate revision under section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act; discretion against retrial where delay and child-witness welfare justify release.
|
6 July 2017 |
|
Review dismissed for failure to plead and justify mandatory Rule 66(1) grounds in the supporting affidavit.
Court of Appeal Rules, r.66(1) – review applications must be based on and justified by one of the enumerated grounds in the affidavit; review is not an appeal and is to be exercised sparingly; failure to state particulars of manifest error or perjury warrants dismissal.
|
6 July 2017 |
|
Review application dismissed: review is exceptional and cannot be used to re-argue appeal matters or unsupported complaints.
* Criminal procedure – Review under Rule 66(1) – Review is exceptional and not a substitute for appeal; limited to manifest error, deprivation of hearing, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, fraud. * Evidence – Alleged reliance on hearsay and absence of voir dire – such complaints, if previously considered on appeal, do not ordinarily justify review. * Criminal law – Rape of a child under ten years – statutory sentence of life imprisonment; sentence not excessive where prescribed by law.
|
5 July 2017 |
|
|
5 July 2017 |
|
Failure to cite the child‑rape provision in the charge sheet vitiated proceedings; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law – Charge‑sheet requirements – Non‑citation of the statutory provision (s.131(3) Penal Code) relating to rape of a child under ten renders the charge defective and vitiates proceedings; Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(2) – power to nullify proceedings, quash convictions and set aside sentences; retrial may be refused where delay and victim welfare justify release.
|
5 July 2017 |
|
Child’s credible testimony and medical corroboration sustained conviction despite improperly tendered PF3; life sentence upheld.
Criminal law – sexual offence – evidence of child of tender years – section 127(7) Evidence Act; medical evidence (PF3) – corroboration and improper tendering by prosecutor; competency to tender documentary exhibits; expungement of improperly tendered PF3; sentence enhancement under section 154(2) Penal Code where victim under ten years.
|
4 July 2017 |
|
A review application cannot be used to re-argue merits; review limited to specified Rule 66(1) grounds.
* Civil procedure – Review of judgment – Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction under Rule 66(1) – limited to manifest error on face of record, denial of hearing, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, or fraud/perjury – not a substitute for appeal; * Review application must plead and support one of the Rule 66(1) grounds; * Inconsistency between notice of motion and supporting affidavit fatal to review application; * Evaluation of evidence is a matter for appeal, not review.
|
4 July 2017 |
|
|
4 July 2017 |