|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| June 2009 |
|
|
Trial for scheduled economic firearms offences without prior DPP consent is jurisdictionally invalid; convictions quashed and retrial ordered.
Criminal law – Jurisdiction – Economic and Organized Crimes Control Act – Scheduled offences – Prior consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions required for trial of economic offences in subordinate courts – Trial without DPP consent nullity – Post hoc consent ineffective.
|
12 June 2009 |
| May 2009 |
|
|
Whether a District Registrar’s certificate can validate an appellant’s notice of appeal filed after the 14‑day limit.
Criminal procedure — Appeals — Time limits for filing notice of appeal under Rule 61(1) — Registrar's duties under Rule 16(1) when documents are lodged out of time — Effect (or non‑effect) of District Registrar's communication on validity of a late notice — Endorsement and dating of prisoners' notices (Rule 68(3)).
|
28 May 2009 |
|
Prisoner appellants' Notice of Appeal lacking the Rule 68(3) prison endorsement was time-barred and the appeal was struck out.
Criminal procedure — Appeals — Time limits under Rule 61(1) — Prisoner appellants and Rule 68(3) endorsement requirement — Registrar’s endorsement does not cure absence of prison officer’s endorsement — Preliminary objection of incompetence sustained.
|
28 May 2009 |
|
An imprisoned appellant must prove Rule 68(3) endorsement to benefit from time exclusions; failure renders the appeal incompetent.
Criminal procedure — Appeals — Time limits for filing notice of appeal (Rule 61(1)) — Prisoner appellants — Rule 68 exclusionary provisions and requirement of prison officer's endorsement (Rule 68(3)) — Non-compliance renders appeal incompetent.
|
28 May 2009 |
|
Prison appellant must prove prison officer's endorsement under Rule 68(3); absent endorsement, a notice of appeal is time‑barred.
Criminal procedure – Appeals – Time limits – Rule 61(1) requires notice of appeal within 14 days; Rule 68 applies to appellants in prison but Rule 68(3) mandates prison officer's endorsement of date/time of receipt; absence of endorsement and supporting evidence renders an appeal time‑barred and incompetent.
|
28 May 2009 |
|
The appellants’ appeal was struck out as time‑barred and for failure to comply with Rules 61 and 68.
Criminal practice — Appeal competency — Time bar under Rule 61(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules; Prisoner notices — Rule 68(1) deeming provision and mandatory endorsement under Rule 68(3); Absence of prison officer’s endorsement defeats claim of timely filing.
|
22 May 2009 |
|
Minor omissions in a criminal notice of appeal under Rule 61 are not fatal; substantial compliance suffices.
Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 61(5),(6),(7) – Form B – substantial compliance – omission as to appellants' attendance and advocate's retention status – non‑fatal defects – jurisdictional citation not required – distinction from application for extension of time (Maneno s/o Abdallah).
|
22 May 2009 |
|
A notice of appeal lacking the mandatory prison officer endorsement is time‑barred and therefore incompetent.
Criminal procedure – Notice of appeal – Court of Appeal Rules 61(1) and 68(3) – Mandatory prison officer endorsement (date and time) where judgment delivered in absentia – Competency and time‑bar – Separate affidavit cannot cure absence of endorsements – Registrar endorsement (Rule 15) – Remedy of application for extension of time.
|
22 May 2009 |
|
Reported
Application mixing two reviews and seeking to depart from an earlier decision was misconceived and time‑barred; struck out with costs.
Review procedure – application mixing two matters – abuse of process; Competency to be heard – respondent not party to decision sought to be reviewed; Time limitation – review applications must be filed within 60 days; Application struck out with costs.
|
22 May 2009 |
|
Reported
Conviction upheld on a voluntary, truthful extra‑judicial confession recorded by a Justice of the Peace.
* Evidence — Confession — meaning under s.3(1)(b) and (c) of the Evidence Act; voluntariness under ss.27–28 — burden on prosecution to prove no threat, promise or inducement. * Procedure — trial within a trial to determine voluntariness; role of Justice of the Peace following Chief Justice's instructions. * Admissibility — a voluntary confession, even if retracted, may support conviction if the court is satisfied of its truth.
|
22 May 2009 |
|
A notice of appeal filed by appellants in custody was struck out as time‑barred where it was undated, unendorsed and filed outside Rule 61(1)’s 14 days.
Criminal procedure — Appeals — Time‑limits — Rule 61(1) fourteen‑day period runs from date of decision; notification to absent appellant does not alter start date absent proof — Prison appellants — Rule 68 requires officer‑in‑charge endorsement (date/time) and forwarding to Registrar to exclude intervening time — Notice of appeal undated and unendorsed is defective — Preliminary objection for want of time upheld.
|
22 May 2009 |
|
The appellant’s conviction was upheld where direct evidence proved ownership of pipes and her participation in the theft.
* Criminal law – stealing by servant – proof of ownership and proof of participation/possession required to sustain conviction.
* Evidence – credibility findings – appellate restraint where case depends on witness credibility and no material misdirection appears.
* Evidence Act s.89 – presumption that trial record correctly records witness testimony.
* Accomplice/corroboration – direct prosecution witnesses not shown to be accomplices do not attract corroboration requirement.
|
21 May 2009 |
|
The appellant's voluntary extra-judicial confession, found truthful, sufficed to uphold his murder conviction.
* Criminal law – Evidence – Extra-judicial confession recorded by Justice of the Peace – Definition under Evidence Act s.3(1).
* Evidence – Voluntariness – Onus on prosecution under s.27 to prove confession was not induced by threat, promise or other prejudice; trial within a trial.
* Corroboration – Retracted confession may nonetheless support conviction if court is fully satisfied of its truth.
* Procedure – Chief Justice's Instructions and role of Justice of the Peace in recording statements.
|
21 May 2009 |
|
Convictions based on unreliable visual identification, flawed identification parades and untested cautioned statements are unsafe and quashed.
* Criminal law – Evidence – Identification – Visual identification by single witnesses and dock identification – necessity for prior out-of-court identification and corroboration.
* Criminal procedure – Identification parades – Police General Order No. 232 – procedural requirements and consequences of non-compliance.
* Criminal procedure – Cautioned statements – requirement to establish voluntariness on the record in subordinate courts; inadmissible if no proper enquiry.
|
19 May 2009 |
|
A prison appellant’s notice of appeal must show prison officer receipt and endorsement or it will be time‑barred and struck out.
Criminal procedure – Appeals by convicted persons in custody – Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 68(1)–(3) – Requirement that prison officer endorse date/time of receipt and forward notice to Registrar – absence of endorsement prevents exclusion of transit time and renders notice time‑barred under Rule 61(1).
|
19 May 2009 |
|
Application to review and overrule prior Court decision was misconceived and time-barred; struck out with costs.
* Civil procedure – review – scope and competence to review prior Court decisions – limitations period for review (60 days).
* Civil procedure – abuse of process – combining distinct review claims in one notice of motion; third party not being a party to one of the challenged decisions.
* Civil practice – requirement that a respondent be a proper party before being required to make representations in a review application.
|
19 May 2009 |
|
A chamber application was struck out because it relied on a Civil Procedure Code provision not applicable to the Court of Appeal.
Civil Procedure Code – applicability – Section 2 limits the Code to High Court and subordinate courts; chamber application under Order XXXVI Rule 2 misplaced in Court of Appeal; preliminary objection on competence sustained; registry-signature irregularity noted for possible investigation.
|
19 May 2009 |
|
A late notice of appeal filed without an extension application is incompetent and is struck out.
Criminal appeal — competency of appeal — notice of appeal time‑barred under Rule 61(1) Court of Appeal Rules — failure to apply for extension of time — defective notice (Form B compliance) — striking out notice of appeal.
|
11 May 2009 |
| March 2009 |
|
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction over an employment-derived trade dispute; tort claims tied to employment could not be severed.
* Employment law – trade dispute – dispute arising from employment contract and connected reliefs (salary, fringe benefits) – outside High Court original jurisdiction.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objection – jurisdiction – striking out for lack of jurisdiction.
* Severance – tort claims (false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, defamation) cannot be severed where they are connected to a trade dispute.
* Reliance on Tambueni and KLM v Ferreira for the rule on trade disputes and non-severability.
|
21 March 2009 |
| January 2009 |
|
|
A convicted fugitive not serving or suspended from custody lacks statutory right to appeal; notice given while at large is invalid.
Criminal appeals — eligibility to appeal while at large — Part X CPA (ss.359,361,366,327,330) — notice of intention within 10 days — petition within 45 days excluding time to obtain record — conviction in absentia and effect of fleeing justice — counsel representation and privilege versus substantive statutory rights.
|
1 January 2009 |