|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2010 |
|
|
Conviction quashed where identification of the applicants was unreliable and investigative omissions undermined the prosecution.
Criminal law — Armed robbery — Visual identification at night — Dock identification versus identification parade — Necessity of contemporaneous disclosure and police evidence — Appellate interference where misdirection or non-direction affects reliability of identification evidence.
|
22 October 2010 |
|
Appellate court quashed murder conviction due to contradictory identification evidence and reasonable doubt, despite limited procedural oversight.
Criminal law – Identification evidence and credibility – contradictions in prosecution witnesses; Criminal procedure – Preliminary hearing (s.192 CPA and Rule 5) – non-compliance not fatal absent miscarriage of justice; Appellate review – trial judge's summing up and assessors – undue influence and failure to properly evaluate defence; Reasonable doubt – benefit to accused; Conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
|
18 October 2010 |
|
Rape conviction quashed where medical report was inadmissible and penetration was not proved.
* Criminal law – Rape – Essential requirement of proof of penetration; evidence must give particulars of what occurred.
* Criminal procedure – PF3/medical report – Failure to inform accused of right to summon medical officer under s.240(3) renders report valueless.
* Appellate procedure – Proceedings quashed under s.29(b) Magistrates’ Courts Act are a nullity and cannot be recalled.
* Second appeal – Court may intervene on questions of law where findings of fact rest on manifestly inadequate evidence.
|
18 October 2010 |
|
Conviction quashed where medical report was inadmissible and prosecution failed to prove penetration.
Criminal law – Rape – proof of penetration as an essential ingredient; PF3 (medical report) inadmissible if accused not informed of right to summon the medical officer; quashed proceedings are a nullity (Magistrates' Courts Act s.29(b)); procedural irregularity in judgment noted but not decisive.
|
18 October 2010 |
|
Court clarified s.192 applies to High Court but, on equivocal evidence, reduced murder conviction and substituted six-year sentence.
Criminal procedure – Section 192 Criminal Procedure Act – preliminary hearing requirement in High Court and subordinate courts; assessors’ opinions – duty to record and reconcile with judge’s findings; appeal – where evidence equivocal, murder conviction may be reduced and sentence substituted; prospective application of a new clarification of procedural law.
|
18 October 2010 |
|
Whether the High Court should admit a late notice under s.361(2); Court restored life sentence and remitted appeal.
* Criminal law – Appeal procedure – Notice of intention to appeal – High Court power to admit late notice under s.361(2) Criminal Procedure Act – Good cause required.
* Civil/criminal procedure – Appellate jurisdiction – Court of Appeal power to depart from Rules (Rule 4(1)) in interests of justice and to exercise revisional power under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
* Sentence – Trial court life sentence restored after High Court's reduction set aside.
|
18 October 2010 |
|
Court may depart from rules and admit out-of-time appeal where High Court wrongly struck it out.
Criminal procedure — notice of intention to appeal — striking out appeal — High Court's discretion to admit appeals out of time under s.361(2) Criminal Procedure Act — Court of Appeal may depart from its rules (Rule 4(1)) and exercise revisionary powers under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act — remittal to High Court for hearing.
|
18 October 2010 |
|
Prisoner’s supported affidavit and prison certificate justified extension of time to lodge appeal; High Court erred in refusing.
Criminal procedure – extension of time under s.361(2) – good cause where prisoner dependent on prison authorities; corroborating prison officer’s certificate – absence of counter‑affidavit – right to be heard; misapplication of restriction on appeals after guilty plea.
|
18 October 2010 |
|
|
18 October 2010 |
|
The Court reduced the appellant's 20-year sentence to 10 years, stressing the weight of guilty plea and mitigating factors.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Appellate review of sentence – Mitigating factors: guilty plea, remand custody, first offender status, age, dependants – Reduction of excessive sentence.
|
18 October 2010 |
|
Weak visual identification offset by recovery of stolen bicycle shortly after the offence; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Visual identification – need for watertight evidence and description of conditions of observation
* Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – recovery of stolen property shortly after offence as linking conduct
* Criminal procedure – Compliance with section 312 Criminal Procedure Act; reading of judgment to accused
* Evidentiary issues – weight of identification balanced against possession/recovery of stolen goods
|
15 October 2010 |
|
Recovery of stolen property led by the appellant corroborated guilt, so conviction upheld despite weak visual identification.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Visual identification evidence – requirement that identification be watertight before conviction – Waziri Amani principle. * Criminal law – Corroboration by recovery of stolen property – accused leading to recovered property shortly after offence as strong link. * Criminal procedure – Compliance with section 312 Criminal Procedure Act – judgment read and mitigation heard. * Evidence – circumstantial and identification evidence considered together to uphold conviction.
|
13 October 2010 |
|
Reported
Court upheld convictions of appellant‑1 and appellant‑3 on recent possession and confession, but quashed appellant‑2’s unsafe conviction.
Criminal law — admissibility of cautioned and extra-judicial statements — voluntariness — trial-within-trial; Criminal procedure — assessors’ role — voluntariness is a legal issue decided without assessors; Evidence — doctrine of recent possession as corroboration of confession; Accomplice evidence — need for corroboration; Failure to raise procedural objections at trial bars appellate challenge; Calling witness not listed at committal — inadmissible.
|
13 October 2010 |
|
Omission to prepare/read the s.192(3) memorandum requires correction; drawing and explaining it cures the defect.
Criminal procedure – Preliminary hearing – Section 192(3) Criminal Procedure Act – Mandatory duty to prepare, read and explain memorandum of matters not in dispute – Non-compliance remedied by ordering memorandum to be drawn from record rather than quashing proceedings.
|
11 October 2010 |
|
Cautioned confession corroborated by recent possession upheld; conviction on uncorroborated accomplice confession quashed.
Criminal law – confession and cautioned statements – admissibility and voluntariness; doctrine of recent possession as corroboration; accomplice evidence and need for corroboration; assessors’ role; committal and procedural compliance in recording statements; appellate restriction on raising unargued trial defects.
|
11 October 2010 |
|
Reported
Whether convictions could stand on retracted/confessed statements and recent possession, and safety of uncorroborated accomplice evidence.
Criminal law – admissibility and voluntariness of extra-judicial and cautioned statements – trial-within-trial – effect of failure to object to recording procedure at trial – recent possession doctrine – accomplice evidence and requirement of corroboration – inadmissible witness called without committal notice.
|
11 October 2010 |
|
Reported
An appeal grounded on a decree bearing a date different from the judgment is incurably defective and is struck out.
Civil procedure – Appeal competency – Decree must bear the date of the judgment (Order XX Rule 7; Order XXXIX Rule 35(1)); Appeal from subordinate court to High Court must be accompanied by valid decree (Order XXXIX Rule 1(1)) – Incurably defective decree renders appeal incompetent – Court’s power to quash proceedings under section 4(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
|
11 October 2010 |
|
An appellate court may set aside a sentence when the trial court fails to properly weigh mitigating factors, including children's welfare and time served.
* Criminal law – Sentencing – appellate interference – appellate court may disturb sentence where trial court failed to properly weigh mitigating factors.
* Sentencing – mitigating factors – plea, first offender status, remorse, welfare of dependent children and time spent in custody.
* Criminal procedure – review of sentence – discretion of trial court v. role of appellate court.
|
8 October 2010 |
|
Failure to inform the appellant of rights under s.293(2) C.P.A. required quashing of subsequent proceedings and resumption of the trial.
Criminal Procedure Act s.293(2) – mandatory duty to inform accused of right to give evidence and call witnesses after prosecution case; Interpretation of Laws Act – "shall" construed as obligatory; Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(2) – revisional power to quash and order resumption of proceedings.
|
8 October 2010 |
|
Trial court’s failure to inform unrepresented accused of section 231 defence options is a mandatory procedural defect.
* Criminal procedure – section 231 Criminal Procedure Act – duty of trial court to inform accused of options for making defence – mandatory requirement. * Interpretation Act – meaning of “shall” – mandatory compliance required. * Procedural irregularity – failure to inform unrepresented accused of rights – renders proceedings defective.
|
8 October 2010 |
|
Preliminary hearing for murder must be by High Court; mandatory s.192 memorandum requirements must be complied with.
Criminal procedure – Preliminary hearing – Competent court to conduct preliminary hearing in murder cases (High Court) – Memorandum of matters not in dispute – mandatory reading, explanation and signatures under s.192(1)–(4) Criminal Procedure Act – improper admission of extra-judicial statement as exhibit – revisional relief under s.4(3) Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
|
8 October 2010 |
|
Nighttime visual and voice identification was unsafe; convictions quashed and death sentences set aside.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night; insufficiency where lighting, distance and room layout not established; voice identification weak; post‑incident naming unreliable where witness inconsistent.
|
7 October 2010 |
|
Failure to prepare, explain and sign the memorandum at a preliminary hearing breaches mandatory s192(3); court ordered its preparation rather than quashing.
* Criminal procedure – Preliminary hearing – Section 192(3) Criminal Procedure Act – mandatory duty to prepare, read, explain and have memorandum of matters not in dispute signed and filed.
* Effect of non-compliance – section 192(4) deeming provision cannot properly apply where s192(3) requirements were not met.
* Remedy – Court may order drawing of memorandum from existing record rather than quashing proceedings; strict compliance required in future.
|
7 October 2010 |
|
Failure to comply with section 231 CPA and unreliable night identification led to quashing of conviction and release of the appellant.
* Criminal procedure – section 231 Criminal Procedure Act – duty of trial court after prosecution close to inform accused of right to give evidence and call witnesses – mandatory requirement – failure vitiates trial.
* Identification evidence – visual ID at night by torchlight – reliability and sufficiency to support conviction.
* Remedy – where procedural breach and weak evidence, conviction quashed and accused acquitted rather than retrial ordered.
|
6 October 2010 |
|
Appellate court reduced an excessive 15-year manslaughter sentence to time served, emphasizing children's welfare and time in custody.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Excessive sentence – Trial court's failure to give adequate weight to mitigating factors (first offender, remorse, welfare of children) – Credit for time spent in custody – Appellate interference with sentence.
|
5 October 2010 |
|
Short interval identification and weapon display justified conviction and reinstatement of statutory thirty-year sentence.
Criminal law – robbery with violence – visual identification and recent possession; Criminal Procedure Act s.214(1) – discretion of trial magistrate to continue trial; Sentencing – display/use of weapon as satisfying ingredients of armed robbery (s.287A) – appellate reduction for non-use of weapon a misdirection.
|
5 October 2010 |
|
Failure to comply with mandatory s.293(2) CrimPA vitiated subsequent proceedings; Court quashed those proceedings and ordered resumption.
Criminal procedure – section 293(2) Criminal Procedure Act – mandatory duty to inform accused of right to give evidence and call witnesses after prosecution case – failure vitiates subsequent proceedings – appellate revisional powers to quash and order resumption.
|
5 October 2010 |
|
Conviction affirmed; Court reinstated statutory armed-robbery sentence where a bow and arrow was used to threaten the victim.
* Criminal law – robbery with violence – identification and recent possession – timely arrest with marked bag and distinctive personal items supporting identification.
* Criminal procedure – section 214(1) CPA – discretion of presiding magistrate to proceed after change of magistrate.
* Evidence – recent possession – applicability where articles include common items but also distinctive belongings of the victim.
* Sentencing – armed robbery (s.287A) – threat or display of weapon (bow and arrow aimed) suffices to attract statutory minimum sentence.
|
5 October 2010 |
|
Identification at night under uncertain lighting was unreliable; convictions and death sentences quashed.
Criminal law – Identification evidence in night-time offences – necessity to prove favourable conditions for visual identification; voice identification weak; familiarity requires favourable conditions; post-incident naming may be unreliable if unsupported or inconsistent.
|
4 October 2010 |
|
Failure to inform the accused of s231 CPA rights vitiated the trial; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
* Criminal procedure — Section 231 Criminal Procedure Act — mandatory duty to inform accused of right to give evidence and call witnesses at close of prosecution case — non-compliance vitiates trial. * Fair trial — audi alteram partem — right to be heard and consequences of election to remain silent. * Sufficiency of evidence — conviction unsafe where procedural breach combines with weak prosecution case. * Retrial — not ordered where State does not seek it and evidence is insufficient.
|
4 October 2010 |
|
Failure to inform the appellant under s293(2) vitiated subsequent proceedings and barred adverse inference from his silence.
* Criminal Procedure Act, s.293(2) – mandatory duty of trial court to inform accused of right to give evidence and call witnesses; failure vitiates drawing of adverse inference.
* Accused's silence – adverse inference permissible only after statutory warning recorded.
* Defence representation – counsel’s election cannot substitute for the court’s direct address to accused.
* Illegality – non-compliance with mandatory trial procedure renders subsequent proceedings null and void and is not curable.
* Appellate revisional jurisdiction – proceedings remitted to trial court to continue from prosecution closure.
|
4 October 2010 |
|
Appellate court reduced a 15-year manslaughter sentence to nine years for failure to consider pre-trial custody and guilty plea.
Criminal law — Sentencing — Manslaughter — Consideration of mitigating factors (pre-trial custody, plea of guilty) — Appellate interference where discretion misapplied.
|
4 October 2010 |
|
Night-time visual identification was unsafe; Court quashed applicant's conviction for unreliable identification.
* Criminal law – Identification – Visual identification at night must be proved with particulars of illumination and description; contradictions on clothing and absence of contemporaneous naming render identification unsafe. * Criminal procedure – Second appeal – Court may interfere where there is misapprehension of evidence or miscarriage of justice. * Evidence – Conduct of accused (reporting to police) can be a relevant circumstance in assessing safety of conviction.
|
1 October 2010 |
| June 2010 |
|
|
Appeal held not time‑barred; period obtaining certified decree excluded under section 19(2), High Court ordered to rehear on merits.
Limitation of actions – Computation of time for appeal – Section 19(2) Law of Limitation Act – exclusion of period for obtaining copy of decree; Service of process – agent/subordinate acceptance – Order V Rule 9(1) Civil Procedure Code; Admissibility of affidavits – hearsay considerations; Registry duty – reasonable and diligent supply of certified copies.
|
8 June 2010 |
| May 2010 |
|
|
Applicant failed to plead sufficient reasons in affidavit; extension of time to appeal dismissed with costs.
Extension of time — Court of Appeal Rules, 1979, Rule 8 — discretion to extend time requires sufficient reason; affidavit must aver reasons for delay; annexed prior High Court ruling cannot substitute for applicant's own pleaded reasons; concurrent jurisdiction under Rule 44.
|
30 May 2010 |
|
Applicant's occupation and risk of hardship justified a stay of execution pending appeal; costs in the cause.
Court of Appeal — stay of execution under Rules 9(2)(b) & 45 — balance of convenience and irreparable harm — bona fide purchaser in occupation — interim relief pending appeal — costs in the cause.
|
14 May 2010 |
|
Non‑compliance with section 293(2) invalidates subsequent proceedings; appellate court quashed them and ordered re‑constitution of the High Court.
Criminal Procedure Act s293(2) – mandatory duty to inform accused of right to testify and call witnesses after prosecution closes – non‑compliance renders subsequent proceedings null; Appellate Jurisdiction Act s4(2) – revisional power to quash and order re‑constitution of trial court.
|
14 May 2010 |
|
Recent possession, property identification and failure to explain possession upheld conviction; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Doctrine of recent possession – proximity in time, suspicious circumstances, and failure to explain possession justified inference of guilt. * Evidence – Visual identification not relied on where witnesses did not identify accused at scene. * Evidence – Identification of property by owner (inscribed cassette and prior report) and admission of exhibits without objection supported conviction. * Procedural – Failure to challenge identification at trial or on first appeal weakens appellate complaint.
|
14 May 2010 |
|
Convictions quashed where dock identification, lack of recovered stolen property and omitted prosecution evidence undermined the case.
Criminal law – identity evidence – dock identification inadmissible without prior identification parade or evidence of scene identification; Recent possession – requirement that stolen property be recovered/exhibited and positively linked to charge; Failure to call material prosecution witnesses and to produce cautioned statements/ID parade form warrants adverse inference.
|
14 May 2010 |
|
Second appellant's appeal abated; Court extended time to file notice of intention to appeal despite procedural defects.
* Criminal procedure – time limits – s.361(1)(a) CPA – notice of intention to appeal and petition of appeal requirements.
* Court of Appeal Rules – competence of appeal – necessity of memorandum of appeal (Rule 72).
* Abatement of appeal on death of appellant – Rule 78(1).
* Revisional powers and substantive justice – Court’s discretion to extend time and cure procedural defects (Appellate Jurisdiction Act; R.2).
|
14 May 2010 |
|
Stay of execution granted pending appeal where balance of convenience and hardship favored the applicant.
* Civil procedure – Stay of execution pending appeal – Applicant must show sufficient cause – balance of convenience as key factor. * Interim relief – Occupation by bona fide purchaser and tenants as relevant to hardship. * Evidence – importance of affidavit evidence to oppose stay.
|
13 May 2010 |
|
Conviction quashed where visual/voice ID, uncorroborated dying declaration and misapplied alibi law made the evidence unsafe.
Criminal law – identification evidence – insufficiency of night-time visual identification and unreliability of torchlight; Voice identification – inherent unreliability and risk of imitation; Dying declaration – need for reliable corroboration and danger of relying on uncorroborated/conflicting testimony; Alibi – trial judge must apply objective legal principles, not local/customary assumptions; Delay in naming suspect – may affect credibility if unexplained.
|
13 May 2010 |
|
Recent possession properly established where appellant caught shortly after robbery with victim‑marked property; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Doctrine of recent possession – proximity in time, suspicious possession and failure to explain possession justify inference of unlawful acquisition; marked property as corroboration.
* Evidence – Identification of property – Exhibits bearing victim’s name and failure to object at trial affect sufficiency of identification.
* Evidence – Visual identification – conviction not founded on visual ID where witnesses did not identify accused at scene.
|
13 May 2010 |
|
|
13 May 2010 |
|
Extension of time granted where intervening holidays and administrative delay defeated timely service, not gross negligence.
Civil procedure – Extension of time to serve notice of appeal – Requirement to annex intended notice – dies non juridicus and public holidays in computing time – sufficient cause and discretionary relief.
|
12 May 2010 |
|
Whether night-time identification and recent possession sufficed to convict the appellant for robbery with violence.
Criminal law – identification evidence – Waziri Amani guidelines for visual identification at night; doctrine of recent possession – inapplicability where stolen property found with an acquitted person; proof beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistency between acquittal and conviction.
|
12 May 2010 |
|
Extension of time granted to serve notice of appeal where successive non-judicial days and genuine service attempts prevented timely service.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Application for extension to serve notice of appeal – No requirement to annex intended notice of appeal to application – Sufficient cause shown where successive dies non juridicus and genuine attempts to effect service prevented timely service.
* Service – Attempts by court broker, incomplete address and respondent unavailable – effect on ability to serve within prescribed time.
* Discretionary relief – grant of extension where failure not due to gross negligence.
|
12 May 2010 |
|
Appeal dismissed: eyewitness identification, corroboration and procedural rulings upheld; alibi improperly notified and disregarded.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Sufficiency of evidence and visual identification by single witness – need for ‘‘absolutely watertight’’ identification. * Criminal procedure – Change of magistrate/venue – application of section 214 CPA and prejudice requirement. * Evidence – Accomplice testimony – corroboration and warning not always required if corroborated. * Criminal procedure – Alibi – notice and particulars under section 194(4)–(5) CPA; court's discretion under s.194(6). * Criminal procedure – Trial in absence after jumping bail – section 226(1) CPA. * Appellate review – reluctance to disturb concurrent factual findings absent misdirection or miscarriage of justice.
|
12 May 2010 |
|
Right of appeal precludes revision; appeals from Primary Courts require a certificate, not leave.
Appeal and revision — Where a right of appeal exists, revisional jurisdiction is generally unavailable except in exceptional circumstances; procedural clarity required when moving the Court; appeals from Primary Courts to the Court of Appeal require a certificate under s.5(2)(c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, not leave under s.5(1)(c).
|
11 May 2010 |
|
Visual identification at night was unsafe; convictions quashed and sentences set aside.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – visual identification at night and identification parade; dangers of mistaken identity and requirement to exclude possibilities of error (Waziri Amani caution); Sexual Offences – sentencing for rape under Sexual Offences Special Provisions Act No. 4 of 1998 (thirty-year term).
|
11 May 2010 |