|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2004 |
|
|
Appellant convicted for jointly soliciting and receiving a bribe; appellate interference upheld due to trial court's material misapprehension.
* Criminal law – corruption – soliciting and receiving bribes during audit duties – marked-note trap evidence. * Criminal law – joint acts and common intention – constructive possession where accused act in concert. * Appellate review – interference with trial court findings justified where trial court misapprehended material facts. * Evidentiary sufficiency – absence of audited books or separate physical possession does not negate credible direct evidence of corrupt solicitation/receipt.
|
9 September 2004 |
|
An uncorroborated, retracted confession, though admissible, rendered the murder conviction unsafe and was quashed.
* Criminal law – admissibility of extra-judicial statements – voluntariness; substantial compliance with administrative Guides for Justices of the Peace. * Criminal procedure – preliminary hearing (s.192 CPA and G.N. No.192/1988) – non-listing of disputed documents not automatically fatal where accused disputes their truth and no prejudice results. * Evidence – retracted confession – requirement for corroboration by independent, reliable evidence before sustaining conviction. * Police conduct – allegations of coercion/torture assessed at trial-within-a-trial.
|
9 September 2004 |
|
A co-accused’s extrajudicial statement cannot convict others without independent corroboration; cautions tainted by torture must be discounted.
Criminal law – Admissibility and voluntariness of caution and extra-judicial statements where torture alleged – Defence failure to object at trial – Effect on later challenge – Co-accused confessions (s.33 Evidence Act) – Need for independent corroboration before convicting other accused – Circumstantial evidence and aiding/abetting.
|
9 September 2004 |
|
First appellant's identification upheld; second appellant's conviction quashed for improper disregard of alibi under s194.
* Criminal law – robbery with violence – identification evidence – sufficiency and reliability; light from chimney lamp; prior acquaintance and recognition by sight and voice.
* Criminal procedure – alibi – section 194 Criminal Procedure Act 1985 – requirement that courts acknowledge defence, exercise discretion judicially and give reasons when discounting alibi raised late.
* Appeal – unsafe conviction – quashing conviction where identification weak and alibi improperly disregarded.
|
1 September 2004 |
| August 2004 |
|
|
An insanity defence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal without trial evidence suggesting possible insanity.
* Criminal law – Insanity – Section 220(1) Criminal Procedure Act, 1985 – court may order medical examination only where trial material reasonably suggests accused might have been insane.
* Criminal law – Presumption of sanity – Section 12 Penal Code – burden on accused to prove insanity on balance of probabilities.
* Criminal law – Intent – intention may be inferred from conduct; motive not essential to murder conviction.
* Procedure – Raising new defences on appeal – not permitted absent supporting trial record.
|
6 August 2004 |
|
Court set aside a 15-year manslaughter sentence as manifestly excessive given provocation, youth and other mitigating factors.
Sentencing — manifestly excessive sentence; mitigation — youth, first offender, remorse, time in remand; provocation/aggression by deceased; appellate interference after guilty plea.
|
4 August 2004 |
| July 2004 |
|
|
Identification and recent possession supported the first appellant's conviction; insufficient evidence absolved the second appellant.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification evidence – reliability under moonlight and Waziri Amani factors. * Criminal law – Doctrine of recent possession – inference of guilt where stolen property is found shortly after theft and no explanation given. * Evidence – credibility of witnesses and non-accomplice status of a witness who transported the property. * Appeal – appellate deference to trial court’s credibility findings absent material grounds for reassessment.
|
22 July 2004 |
|
Reported
Appeal allowed — 20-year manslaughter sentence reduced to five years for failure to account for provocation, guilty plea, and first-offender status.
* Criminal law – Manslaughter – Sentence – Whether a 20-year sentence was manifestly excessive – appellate interference where trial court failed to consider grave provocation, first offender status and guilty plea.
* Sentencing – Mitigating factors – grave provocation (adultery), plea of guilty, saving of court time and first offender status as relevant considerations.
|
16 July 2004 |
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentence - Sentence of twenty years imprisonment where accused pleaded guilty to the offence of manslaughter, was outrageously provoked by misconduct of his infidel spouse - Whether sentence imposed was excessive.
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentencing - Whether appellate court may alter a sentence imposed by trial court.
|
16 July 2004 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed where only unreliable witness testimony and no adequate circumstantial evidence established guilt.
Criminal law – murder – circumstantial evidence – adequacy of inference; evidence – alleged confession – witness credibility and contradictions; identification – evidentiary doubts.
|
16 July 2004 |
|
Revision refused where party misnomer had been corrected and applicant failed to identify any point of law.
Civil procedure – Revision – discretionary power of appellate court – applicant must show a proper basis for revision; Correction of parties' names – subsequent High Court order rectifying misnomer cures alleged confusion; Leave to appeal – requirement to disclose point of law to engage appellate jurisdiction; Failure to specify point of law – court will not speculate in applicant's favour.
|
16 July 2004 |
|
An accused's guilty plea and first-offender status are material mitigating factors; appellate court may reduce sentence if overlooked.
* Criminal law – Sentencing – Appellate interference with sentencing discretion where trial judge overlooked material mitigating factors. * Plea of guilty – relevance as mitigating factor and duty of trial judge to consider and record it. * First offender and remand time as mitigation.
|
16 July 2004 |
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentence - Sentence of thirty years
imprisonment -where the accused pleaded guilty to the offence of
manslaughter - Whether the sentence imposed was excessive.
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentenceing - Whether the Appellate Court
may alter a sentence imposed by the trial court. |
16 July 2004 |
|
An application to stay execution under Rule 9(2)(b) must be brought within 60 days; late applications are struck out.
* Civil procedure – Stay of execution under Rule 9(2)(b) – time limit for filing – sixty (60) days rule endorsed – Law of Limitation Act as persuasive inspiration – High Court certificate does not automatically stay execution.
|
16 July 2004 |
|
Reported
Court reduced an excessive 30-year manslaughter sentence to five years for overlooked mitigating factors and grave provocation.
Sentencing — appellate interference — grounds for altering sentence where trial judge overlooked material mitigating factors (no weapon, remorse, guilty plea, time on remand) — provocation as mitigation — reduction of excessive sentence.
|
16 July 2004 |
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentence - Sentence of thirty years imprisonment - where the accused pleaded guilty to the offence of
manslaughter - Whether the sentence imposed was excessive.
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentenceing - Whether the Appellate Court may alter a sentence imposed by the trial court. |
16 July 2004 |
|
Applicant ordered to deposit decretal amount into court pending appeal; costs to follow event.
Civil procedure – stay of execution – conditional stay by deposit of decretal amount into court pending appeal; delay in prosecuting appeal; procedural defect in affidavit not fatal where no injustice; certification of grounds not required unless point of law to be certified.
|
14 July 2004 |
|
Order XLII Rule 7(1) bars appeals from dismissed review applications; section 5(1)(c) AJA is subject to statutory exceptions.
Civil procedure – Appealability – Order XLII Rule 7(1) CPC bars appeals from orders dismissing review applications; s.5(1)(c) AJA subject to statutory exceptions – alternative remedy by revision – time bar.
|
14 July 2004 |
|
Appellate court reduced sentence after trial judge failed to properly consider mitigating factors including drunkenness.
Criminal law - Sentencing - Manifestly excessive sentence - Appellate interference where trial judge ignored or failed properly to consider mitigating factors - Mitigation including drunkenness, fight, plea of guilty, first offender status and remand custody.
|
13 July 2004 |
|
Application adjourned for respondent's counsel indisposition; Court admonished against seeking adjournments by letter.
Civil procedure – adjournment due to counsel’s indisposition; Court admonition against seeking adjournments by letter without personal attendance.
|
13 July 2004 |
|
Unclear night-time identification rendered the convictions unsafe; doubt resolved for appellants and convictions quashed.
Criminal law – armed robbery – visual identification – reliability of identification in poor lighting; prior acquaintance, identification parade and child’s evidence insufficient to cure doubtful identification; benefit of doubt to accused.
|
3 July 2004 |
| June 2004 |
|
|
Conviction quashed where retracted confessions lacked independent corroboration despite being admitted as voluntary.
* Evidence — Confessions — Cautioned and extra-judicial statements — Inquiry into voluntariness in subordinate courts and admissibility under section 27 Evidence Act. * Evidence — Corroboration — Retracted confession cannot safely sustain conviction without independent corroboration; accomplice/co-accused evidence requires corroboration. * Criminal procedure — Burden of proof — Prosecution duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; misdirection cannot transfer burden to accused.
|
28 June 2004 |
|
Reported
Provocation defence fails where acts are lawful, offered by a third party, or where evidence shows premeditation and loss of self-control is absent.
* Criminal law – Murder – Defence of provocation – statutory definition and requirements (wrongful act/insult; offered by the person killed; presence; ordinary person standard; deprivation of self-control).
* Criminal law – Provocation cannot be based on lawful conduct or threats made by a third party.
* Evidence – Conduct showing premeditation negates loss of self-control and availability of provocation defence.
|
28 June 2004 |
|
Reported
Criminal Law — Murder - Plea of Provocation - When a plea of provocation may be sustained - Section 202 of the Penal Code.
Criminal Law — Provocation - Appellant enraged by husband and kills co-wife - Whether the defence of provocation is available to the appellant. |
28 June 2004 |
|
Conviction based on recent possession was unsafe where identification was unreliable and accused was a later-arriving guest.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – inconsistencies between electric light and torchlight – reliability of identification; Criminal law – Doctrine of recent possession – requirements and limits where accused is a guest/late occupier; Sufficiency of evidence – conviction unsafe where no cogent link between accused and stolen property.
|
28 June 2004 |
|
Conviction on circumstantial evidence quashed where blood on exhibit was not linked to the deceased and reasonable doubt remained.
Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – Requirement that circumstantial facts irresistibly point to accused’s guilt – Forensic evidence – Blood identified as human only, without blood grouping or matching, insufficient to link exhibit to deceased – Trail of blood ending away from accused’s house not conclusive – Suspicion insufficient for conviction.
|
28 June 2004 |
|
Appellant's murder conviction quashed where circumstantial blood evidence failed to link him conclusively to the deceased.
Criminal law — Circumstantial evidence — Requirement that circumstances irresistibly point to accused to exclusion of others; Forensic evidence — Blood staining identified as human but without blood group cannot link sample to deceased; Evidence sufficiency — Blood trail ending short of accused's house and presence of other houses weaken inference; Suspicion alone insufficient for conviction.
|
28 June 2004 |
|
Appellate court quashed convictions due to unsafe visual identification and noted an invalid statutory rape sentence.
Criminal law — Identification evidence — Visual identification regarded as weakest form; trial and appellate courts must analyse surrounding circumstances carefully (Waziri Amani principle) — Inconsistent descriptions of weapons and vague lighting undermine reliability. Criminal procedure — Appellate review — Defence evidence improperly rejected as afterthought. Sentencing — Imposition of statutory rape sentence invalid where statute not yet in force.
|
28 June 2004 |
| March 2004 |
|
|
Nullification of a property sale without hearing the current purchaser violates audi alteram partem; matter remitted for inter partes hearing.
* Civil procedure — Revision under s.4(3) Appellate Jurisdiction Act — proper where applicant not party to High Court proceedings and cannot appeal.
* Administrative/estate matters — Revocation of purported letters of administration and consequential nullification of dispositions.
* Natural justice — audi alteram partem requires hearing of current owner/purchaser before nullifying property disposition.
* Remedies — nullification set aside and matter remitted for inter partes hearing; costs to follow event.
|
11 March 2004 |
| January 2004 |
|
|
|
19 January 2004 |
|
Section 28(1) of the Security of Employment Act ousts civil jurisdiction over claims arising from summary dismissal; proceedings were nullities.
* Employment law – Security of Employment Act, 1964 – section 28(1) – ouster of civil court jurisdiction over matters relating to summary dismissal; inability to sever tort claims arising from same cause of action to evade statutory ouster; proceedings founded on dismissed employment declared nullity.
|
19 January 2004 |