|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2012 |
|
|
Oral notice to prison officials can satisfy section 361(1)(a); High Court erred in dismissing extension of time.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to give notice of intention to appeal – section 361(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Act – oral notice to prison officers sufficient – supplying copies of proceedings evidences steps to appeal.
|
27 November 2012 |
| September 2012 |
|
|
Court upheld convictions, finding identification reliable, exhibits properly admitted, and appeal without merit.
Criminal law – Armed robbery and unlawful wounding – Eyewitness identification: adequacy of lighting, duration and proximity; family-victim testimony admissibility and credibility; tendering of exhibits without objection; recent possession and discovery of stolen property; discrepancies in witness statements and effect on appeal.
|
19 September 2012 |
|
Appellants' challenges to identification, exhibit tendering and dates failed; conviction and sentences upheld and appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – positive identification at night aided by hurricane lamp, proximity, duration and neighbourhood familiarity. * Evidence – tendering exhibits – no absolute rule that investigator must tender; admissibility where witness had custody/knowledge and no objection. * Witness credibility – relatives’ testimony to be assessed on merits. * Recent possession – discovery of stolen property corroborative of involvement.
|
19 September 2012 |
|
Appointment under s.7(1)(a) was improper where a will exists; High Court orders of 27 June 2012 quashed.
* Probate law – applicability of s.7(1)(a) Administrator‑General (Powers and Functions) Act – s.7(1)(a) applies to intestacy only; not where a will exists and Part VII Cap 352 governs. * Procedure – interlocutory probate applications must be brought under correct statutory provision (Part VII Cap 352) where testamentary instrument exists. * Procedural fairness – parties must be given opportunity to be heard/ cross‑examine; parties absent may be proceeded against under Court Rules. * Case management – avoid multiplicity by maintaining single High Court record for related probate matters (No. 3 of 2005).
|
18 September 2012 |
|
A notice of appeal can be struck out where the respondent failed to apply for leave to appeal within the prescribed time.
* Civil procedure – appeal – striking out notice of appeal for failure to take essential steps (failure to apply for leave within prescribed time).
* Extension of time – application for extension filed after strike-out motion cannot defeat strike-out.
* Rule 89(2) – power to strike out notices taken but not within prescribed time; reliance on precedent.
|
18 September 2012 |
|
Conviction for armed robbery upheld on reliable identification and explained delay in naming the suspect.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification evidence – Naming suspect at earliest opportunity – Delay explained by suspect's disappearance; close proximity and prolonged observation under lamp supporting positive identification – Appellate interference with credibility findings limited.
|
17 September 2012 |
|
First appellant’s visual identification upheld; second appellant’s conviction quashed for lack of identification.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Visual identification – Naming at earliest opportunity – Identification parade absence – Identification Parade Register – Preliminary hearing (s.192(3)) non-compliance affects preliminary hearing only – Appellate interference with concurrent findings of fact.
|
17 September 2012 |
|
High Court erred in summarily rejecting the applicant's criminal appeal; record remitted for immediate full hearing.
Criminal procedure — Summary rejection under section 364(1)(c) CPA — requirements: perusal of record, certification, sparing use — Notice of appeal (s361(1)(a)) — Revisional jurisdiction (s4(2) AJA) — Remedy: quash and remit for full hearing.
|
17 September 2012 |
|
Appellate court reduced a manifestly excessive life sentence for manslaughter after trial court ignored key mitigating factors and relied on extraneous remarks.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Manslaughter after guilty plea – Trial court’s reliance on extraneous observations and failure to consider mitigating factors – Appellate intervention warranted – Sentence reduced.
|
17 September 2012 |
|
Armed robbery conviction upheld on the doctrine of recent possession; chain of custody and exhibit handling were adequate.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Doctrine of recent possession – Elements: property found with suspect; property positively of complainant; property was stolen; theft was recent – Chain of custody – Admissibility and identification of exhibits – Visual/dock identification and cautioned statement not relied upon.
|
17 September 2012 |
|
Conviction unsafe where PF3 and deaf‑victim evidence were improperly recorded and prosecution failed to prove penetration.
* Criminal law – Rape – requirement to prove penetration – insufficiency of prosecution case where victim’s evidence and medical exhibit excluded. * Evidence – admissibility of PF3 – non‑compliance with s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act renders PF3 inadmissible. * Evidence – deaf and dumb witness – requirements of s.128 Evidence Act; interpreter competency, swearing and recording of signs. * Credibility – impact of contradictory allegations on complainant’s witness credibility.
|
17 September 2012 |
|
Appellant’s conviction quashed where visual and voice identification were unreliable; procedural PF3 irregularity warranted expungement, s.231 breach curable.
* Criminal procedure – section 231 CrPC – duty to inform accused of right to give evidence and call witnesses – non-compliance curable under section 388 where no prejudice shown.
* Evidence – PF3/medical report – requirement to produce medical officer for cross-examination – failure justifies expunging PF3.
* Identification – visual identification by torch/kerosene lamp – must eliminate all chances of mistaken identity.
* Evidence – voice identification – inherently weak and unreliable unless witness very familiar with accused’s voice.
|
14 September 2012 |
|
Victim’s identification and medical evidence upheld; applicant’s rape conviction appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – rape – proof of penetration – victim’s evidence corroborated by medical report (PF3).; * Identification – familiarity with accused, proximity and opportunity to identify – Waziri Amani guidelines applied contextually.; * Procedure – witnesses not listed at preliminary hearing – restriction applicable to High Court trials and not fatal in these circumstances.; * Appeals – scope of second appeal and caution when interfering with findings of fact.
|
14 September 2012 |
|
A stay can be granted where non‑compliance with filing rules may be waived and the applicant shows substantial loss plus security.
Commercial law – stay of execution; Court of Appeal Rules Rule 11(2)(d) (good cause: substantial loss, delay, security); Rule 106(1) compliance and waiver; preliminary objections inappropriate where factual/evidential proof is required.
|
13 September 2012 |
|
Court granted stay of execution where applicant showed substantial loss and offered security despite late written submissions.
* Civil procedure — Preliminary objection — Non‑compliance with Rule 106(1) — inappropriate where factual/evidential issues arise requiring proof; objection dismissed.
* Civil procedure — Rule 106(19) — Court may waive strict compliance with filing rules in the interests of justice.
* Civil procedure — Stay of execution — Rule 11(2)(c)/(d) — applicant must show substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and give security; stay granted where these satisfied.
|
13 September 2012 |
|
PF3 and unsworn-interpreter evidence expunged, but conviction upheld on independent eyewitness and mother's testimony.
* Criminal procedure — admissibility of PF3 — medical report tendered contrary to section 240(3) must be expunged. * Evidence — deaf-mute witness — interpreter must be sworn; unsworn interpretation is inadmissible. * Sexual offences — conviction may stand on credible independent eyewitness and victim’s family testimony despite expungement of other evidence.
|
12 September 2012 |
|
The applicant's conviction and death sentence were quashed for unsafe visual identification and lack of forensic linkage of exhibits.
Criminal law – Murder – Sufficiency of evidence – Visual identification; reliability and conditions for identification – Forensic linkage of exhibits (blood) to victim – Burden of proof remains on prosecution – Appellate intervention where conviction is unsafe.
|
11 September 2012 |
|
Unreliable single-witness identification and unproven blood on exhibits led to quashing of murder conviction.
Criminal law – sufficiency of evidence; visual identification – safeguards and caution required for single eyewitness identification; physical exhibits – need to prove blood is human and linked to victim; burden of proof – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and burden never shifts.
|
11 September 2012 |
|
Conviction quashed for armed robbery due to contradictory evidence, broken chain of custody and failure to comply with s.231(1) CPA.
Criminal law – armed robbery – recent possession doctrine – requirement to establish nexus and chain of custody; evidence – contradictions in dates and weapons; procedural fairness – non-compliance with s.231(1) Criminal Procedure Act; improper admission/handling of exhibits and cautioned statement.
|
11 September 2012 |
|
Appeal allowed: exhibits expunged, identification unsafe, alibi inadmissible on appeal, conviction quashed and sentences set aside.
Criminal law – admissibility of exhibits – compliance with s.240(3) CPA; Identification evidence – night-time, torch-held identification unreliable; Evidence based on suspicion insufficient for conviction; Alibi – failure to give statutory notice (s.194 CPA) bars belated reliance; Sentencing – appellate enhancement without reasons unlawful and manifestly excessive.
|
11 September 2012 |
|
Death during a fight may negate malice aforethought and justify substituting manslaughter for murder.
Criminal law – Murder v. Manslaughter – Malice aforethought – Whether fatality occurring in a fight establishes intent to kill – Admission of post‑mortem under s.192(3) Criminal Procedure Act – Single eyewitness evidence.
|
11 September 2012 |
|
Applicant’s conviction quashed for denial of fair trial and inadmissible/conflicted confession and hearsay evidence.
Criminal law — murder — conviction quashed due to procedural and evidential defects; Evidence — confessions: voluntariness inquiry required where confession made after questioning by relatives; Evidence — hearsay inadmissible to prove guilt; Fair trial — right to interpreter (s.211 Cap 20): failure fatal; Procedure — extra‑judicial statement must be properly read, signed and supported by recording officer testimony.
|
10 September 2012 |
|
A transfer effected after plea-taking and a preliminary hearing is invalid and subsequent subordinate-court proceedings are null.
Criminal procedure — Transfer under section 256A(1) CPA — Transfer must be effected before plea-taking and preliminary hearing — Transfer after plea/preliminary hearing vitiates jurisdiction — Proceedings in subordinate court nullity — High Court to resume trial.
|
10 September 2012 |
|
Improperly admitted PF3 expunged; conviction and 30‑year sentence affirmed; excessive corporal punishment reduced to twelve strokes.
• Criminal procedure – Evidence – Medical report (PF3) improperly tendered contrary to s.240(3) CPA – to be expunged. • Evidence – Corroboration – Complainant’s testimony corroborated by independent medical/third‑party observations and conduct. • Criminal procedure – Failure to call police investigator not fatal where independent evidence establishes offence. • Sentencing – Custodial sentence (statutory minimum) affirmed. • Corporal punishment – Excessive strokes reduced to statutory twelve strokes under revisional jurisdiction.
|
8 September 2012 |
|
Armed robbery conviction quashed because night-time visual identification was inadequate and unsafe.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Visual identification at night – adequacy of eyewitness description and reliability of torchlight identification; appellate scrutiny of identification evidence.
|
7 September 2012 |
| June 2012 |
|
|
Appellate court quashed rape conviction where implausibilities and inconsistencies raised reasonable doubt about consent.
Criminal law – Rape – Consent and reasonable doubt; assessment of credibility and implausibilities in complainant’s account; distinguishing authorities involving aggravated use of force; adequacy and timing of medical evidence (PF3).
|
4 June 2012 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed where implausibilities in prosecution evidence created reasonable doubt about consent.
Criminal law – Rape – Consent – Credibility of complainant – Implausibilities and unexplained conduct in prosecution case may create reasonable doubt; appellate intervention where conviction is unsafe; standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
4 June 2012 |
|
Rape conviction quashed where implausibilities in prosecution evidence created reasonable doubt about non‑consent.
Criminal law – Rape – Proof beyond reasonable doubt; consent – inconsistencies and implausibilities in prosecution narrative; benefit of doubt; distinguishing aggravated-force precedents; relevance of PF3/medical evidence timing.
|
4 June 2012 |
|
An unequivocal guilty plea supported by admitted facts sustained conviction for armed robbery; appeal dismissed and 30-year sentence confirmed.
Criminal law – Plea of guilty – Whether plea was unequivocal and voluntary – Plea taken under mistake, ambiguity or coercion – Elements of armed robbery and common intention – Appeals against conviction based on guilty pleas.
|
4 June 2012 |
|
Appellate court quashed appellant's rape conviction due to incredible prosecution witnesses and insufficient evidence.
Criminal law – Rape – Reliance on complainant and host witness – Witness credibility and contradictions; Delay in reporting sexual offence; Charge-sheet particulars and statutory renumbering; Quashing conviction for insufficient credible evidence.
|
4 June 2012 |
|
Appellate court quashed rape conviction due to incredible prosecution evidence and unexplained delay; charge-sheet typo non-fatal.
* Criminal law – Rape – Credibility of complainant and witnesses – Contradictions and unexplained delay – Effect on prosecution case.
* Criminal procedure – Charge-sheet technical error – Typographical mistake not fatal where substantive law incorporated into Penal Code.
* Evidence – Appellate reassessment of credibility based on coherence and comparison with other evidence.
|
4 June 2012 |
|
The appellant’s armed robbery conviction was quashed due to contradictions, denial of cross‑examination, and misapplied recent possession.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Doctrine of recent possession – limits and evidential requirements; * Criminal procedure – Fair trial – right to object to tendering of exhibits and to cross‑examine crucial witnesses; * Evidence – assessment of witness credibility where material contradictions exist; * Appellate review – second appellate court may reassess credibility where lower courts failed to consider material points; * Case management – failure to consolidate related appeals may produce inconsistent decisions.
|
4 June 2012 |
|
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed due to serious witness contradictions and denial of opportunity to test exhibit ownership.
* Criminal law – armed robbery – conviction based on doctrine of recent possession – effect of material contradictions in prosecution evidence on applicability of doctrine. * Criminal procedure – right to cross‑examine and to object to tendering of exhibits – prejudice where ownership and identification not properly tested. * Appeal – reassessment of witness credibility by appellate court where lower courts failed to address material inconsistencies. * Case management – failure to consolidate related appeals may produce inconsistent judgments.
|
4 June 2012 |
|
Reported
High Court exceeded powers by issuing deportation order; contempt proceedings were procedurally defective and are nullified.
Immigration law — Deportation — Only Minister may issue deportation orders under Immigration Act s.14(1); High Court's deportation order quashed. Contempt of court — Proper charge and procedure — tearing exhibit during testimony falls under s.114(1)(k) or s.109; judge cannot prosecute and sentence after the fact without following summary-procedure requirements; failure vitiates proceedings. Burden of proof — s.30 Immigration Act places burden on person alleging citizenship or lawful presence.
|
4 June 2012 |
|
Material contradictions in the prosecution evidence rendered the applicant's conviction unsafe; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
* Criminal law – armed robbery – recent possession doctrine – ownership proof where no competing claimant.* Evidence – tendering of exhibits – recovery witnesses should identify recovered items and their serial numbers; tendering by complainant may prejudice accused.* Evidence – contradictions and inconsistencies – material discrepancies among prosecution witnesses can render their testimony unreliable and make conviction unsafe.* Appeals – scope of second appeal – this Court may interfere where both lower courts misapprehended or failed to appreciate evidence.
|
4 June 2012 |
|
Appeal allowed: contradictions in prosecution evidence and failure to have retrievers identify exhibits rendered conviction unsafe.
* Criminal law – armed robbery – identification and recovery of stolen property – recent possession doctrine – adequacy of proof of ownership without receipt. * Evidence – credibility and coherence of prosecution witnesses – contradictions and inconsistencies – requirement for corroboration. * Procedure – tendering of exhibits by witnesses who retrieved property; prejudice from failure to have retrievers identify exhibits.
|
4 June 2012 |
|
Conviction quashed for denial of fair trial and unreliable visual identification; retrial refused.
Criminal procedure — Right to fair trial — Recusal and successor magistrate — When successor must hear witnesses afresh; Visual identification — reliability and sufficiency; Retrial — principles restraining retrial where prosecution could fill gaps in original case.
|
4 June 2012 |
|
Appellate court quashed rape conviction due to unreliable, contradictory prosecution evidence and unexplained reporting delay.
Criminal law – Rape – Credibility of complainant and witness – Contradictory accounts and unexplained delay in reporting – Charge-sheet minor misdescription (wrong year) immaterial where offence clearly stated – Appellate assessment of credibility (Shabani Daudi).
|
3 June 2012 |
|
An informed, unequivocal guilty plea properly taken under section 228 sustains conviction and a 30-year sentence.
* Criminal law – Plea of guilty – When a plea is unequivocal and informed it supports conviction; * Criminal procedure – Section 228 Criminal Procedure Act – requirements when taking a plea; * Armed robbery – elements and proof by admitted facts; * Appeal – limited grounds against convictions based on guilty pleas (ambiguity, mistake, misapprehension, coercion).
|
2 June 2012 |
|
Appellate court quashed murder conviction due to inadmissible cautioned statement, evidential contradictions and broken circumstantial chain.
* Criminal law – admissibility of cautioned statement – compliance with sections 50–51 CPA and requirement for trial-within-a-trial after repudiation.
* Evidence – circumstantial evidence – requirement that chain of inference exclude reasonable alternative explanations.
* Forensic proof – absence of DNA/forensic link and conflicting testimony about weapons undermining conviction.
* Procedural irregularities and misdirections rendering conviction unsafe.
|
2 June 2012 |
|
A conviction based solely on dock identification by a stranger is unsafe and therefore quashed.
Criminal law – Visual identification – Dock identification by a stranger – No identification parade – Absence of corroborative evidence – Conviction unsafe; quashed.
|
2 June 2012 |
|
Dock identification by a stranger, unsupported by parade or corroboration, cannot safely sustain a conviction.
Criminal law – Visual identification – Dock identification by a witness who was a stranger and who gave no prior description or identification parade – Dock identification alone insufficient to ground conviction; conviction unsafe where no police evidence on arrest or corroboration of identification.
|
2 June 2012 |
|
The appeal was dismissed; the appellant's conviction and mandatory life sentence for child rape were upheld despite PF3 irregularity.
* Criminal law – Rape of a child – proof of penetration – on-the-spot observation, bleeding and confession as sufficient evidence.
* Evidence – Medical report (PF3) – breach of section 240(3) Criminal Procedure Act; expunged but conviction may stand if independent evidence suffices.
* Evidence of age – parental testimony and unchallenged trial evidence acceptable; appellate court not required to overrule absent dispute.
* Sentence – mandatory life imprisonment for rape of a child upheld.
|
1 June 2012 |
|
The applicant's conviction and life sentence for rape of a three‑year‑old upheld despite expunging the PF3.
Criminal law – Rape – Proof of penetration: ocular evidence and bleeding plus confession can prove penetration; Criminal procedure – Admission of medical report (PF3) in breach of s.240(3) C.P.A. – PF3 expunged but conviction can stand on other overwhelming evidence; Evidence – Proof of victim's age: parental/uncontested evidence acceptable when not challenged at trial.
|
1 June 2012 |
| May 2012 |
|
|
High Court erred in holding res judicata suo motu without hearing appellant; appeal quashed and remitted for rehearing.
Appellate procedure — re-hearing on appeal — jurisdiction of first appellate court; Res judicata — court raising issue suo motu without hearing parties; Right to be heard (audi alteram partem); Labour law — trial court strike out under s.28(1) Security of Employment Act (exclusive jurisdiction of Labour Courts) left undecided.
|
31 May 2012 |
|
Conviction for rape of a three‑year‑old upheld despite expunged PF3 because eyewitnesses and confession proved penetration.
* Sexual offences – rape of a child – proof of penetration – evidence of bleeding, being found in the act and confession as proof of penetration. * Criminal procedure – medical report (PF3) – mandatory right under section 240(3) to call medical officer; breach may lead to expungement but conviction may stand if other evidence is overwhelming. * Evidence – unchallenged age evidence and parental knowledge of child’s age. * Sentencing – mandatory life sentence for rape of a child.
|
31 May 2012 |
|
Failure to serve the required copy of a notice of appeal warrants striking out the notice with costs.
* Civil procedure – Appeal – Service of notice of appeal – Mandatory compliance with service provisions (Rule 77(1) Court Rules, 1979) – Failure to serve a copy permits striking out under Rule 89(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009; proof of service required; credibility of service assertions examined.
|
29 May 2012 |
|
Failure to serve the required copy of a notice of appeal breaches mandatory rules and justifies striking out the appeal.
Service of process – Notice of appeal – Requirement to serve a copy on the respondent under Rule 77(1) – Proof of service – Credibility of informal assertions – Strike out under Rule 89(2).
|
29 May 2012 |
|
A High Court's refusal to certify a point of law under s.5(2)(c) is final; no appeal to the Court of Appeal lies.
Appellate procedure – Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.5(2)(c) – Exclusive High Court power to certify point of law in Part III (MCA) matters – refusal to grant certificate final and not appealable to Court of Appeal – competence of appeal.
|
29 May 2012 |
|
No appeal lies to the Court of Appeal against a High Court's refusal to issue a certificate on a point of law.
* Appellate Jurisdiction Act, s.5(2)(c) – certificate on a point of law – High Court exclusively empowered to certify for third appeals in matters from primary courts (Part III MCA).
* Jurisdiction – Court of Appeal has no power to certify a point of law to itself where the High Court refuses; refusal final and unappealable.
* Procedural competence – appeals absent statutory leave or certificate are incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
29 May 2012 |