|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2020 |
|
|
A trial court may not close the prosecution's case; improper closure is quashed and trial remitted to continue.
Criminal procedure – closure of prosecution's case – court lacks power to close prosecution's case – prosecution controls when its case is closed – improper closure prejudices prosecution – remedy: quash order and remit to continue trial.
|
18 December 2020 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification was unreliable and ownership evidence was irregular, defeating recent-possession proof.
Visual identification — requirements and reliability (Waziri Amani); necessity of prior description to avoid mistaken identity; procedural rule to read admitted exhibits — failure leads to expungement; doctrine of recent possession — cumulative elements (possession, positive proof of ownership, recent theft, subject of charge); variance between charge and evidence — need to amend under s.234 Criminal Procedure Act; improperly admitted cautioned statements may be expunged.
|
18 December 2020 |
|
Omission to frame and decide pleaded issue of consent to publication vitiated the trial proceedings; matter remitted for rehearing.
Civil procedure – framing of issues – Order VIII rule 40(1) CPC – failure to frame/decide an issue raised in pleadings and evidence vitiates proceedings; Defamation – publication of photograph and consent – necessity to determine consent when pleaded; Remittal for rehearing de novo where procedural omission taints judgment.
|
17 December 2020 |
|
Failure to serve the notice of appeal on a directly affected party renders the appeal incompetent and it is struck out.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Rule 84(1) TCR 2009 – mandatory service of notice of appeal on persons directly affected – failure to serve a party to the proceedings (first defendant in counterclaim) renders appeal incompetent – overriding objective cannot cure breach of mandatory procedural rule.
|
17 December 2020 |
|
Substituting a charge in judgment without calling the accused to plead violates section 234 and renders the judgment a nullity.
Criminal procedure – Amendment or substitution of charge – Section 234 Criminal Procedure Act – Mandatory requirement to call accused to plead to altered charge – Illegality of amending charge at judgment-writing stage – Effect: trial judgment and subsequent appeal proceedings rendered nullity.
|
14 December 2020 |
|
Unsworn testimony before the CMA vitiates proceedings and requires a de novo rehearing.
* Labour law – procedural fairness – mandatory oath for witnesses before the CMA – rule 25(1) GN No. 67 of 2007 and s.4 Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act; unsworn evidence vitiates proceedings; remedy — quash and remit for rehearing.
|
11 December 2020 |
|
A trial court's failure to decide all framed issues renders its judgment defective and requires remittal for full determination.
* Civil procedure — Framed issues — Duty of trial court to decide every framed issue — Failure to do so renders judgment defective.
* Appellate jurisdiction — Limits — Court of Appeal cannot decide issues not decided by the High Court; may only re-appraise decided matters (AJA s.4).
* Remedy — Quash judgment and remit to trial court for determination of unresolved issues.
|
11 December 2020 |
|
Substituting a charge in judgment without calling the accused to plead under section 234 CPA renders conviction a nullity; appellant released.
Criminal procedure – Amendment/substitution of charge – Section 234 CPA – Mandatory requirement to call accused to plead to amended charge – Amendment at judgment stage invalid – Conviction a nullity – Revisional powers under section 4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – Remedy and release where prolonged custody.
|
8 December 2020 |
| June 2020 |
|
|
Application for revision struck out as time-barred and incompetent for omission of necessary records and improper procedure.
Revision — Time limit for filing — Rule 65(4) Court of Appeal Rules — application filed beyond 60 days and no extension sought; Revision — Competency — omission of lower Tribunal proceedings and essential High Court records renders revision application incompetent; Procedure — applications must be by notice of motion supported by affidavit — 'Memorandum of Revision' not recognised; Parties — non-party may seek revision but proper parties (e.g., court broker) may need joinder where necessary.
|
18 June 2020 |
|
The Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding penetration proved by credible victim and corroborative evidence and expunging an unlawful cautioned statement.
* Criminal law – rape – necessity to prove penetration – slight penetration is sufficient and may be proved by victim's evidence and corroboration.
* Evidence – medical report (PF3) not always prerequisite; oral evidence and non‑expert witness examinations can establish penetration and injury.
* Criminal procedure – cautioned statement recorded beyond four hours after arrest is inadmissible and must be expunged.
* Charge‑pleading – defects in citation of statutory provision may be curable under section 388(1) CPA where particulars and evidence give fair notice and no prejudice.
* Identification/credibility – demeanour and corroboration of victim and family members sufficient to support conviction.
|
17 June 2020 |
|
Conviction quashed where visual identification was not watertight and investigative omissions undermined prosecution credibility.
* Criminal law — Visual identification — Evidence of recognition; need for detailed description, earliest opportunity to name suspect, and elimination of possibility of mistaken identity.
* Criminal procedure — Investigative omissions — Failure to call arresting/officer who received report undermines prosecution credibility.
* Evidence — Variance between charge sheet and testimony (omission of alleged stolen gold stones) weakens witness reliability.
* Appellate review — Interference with concurrent findings permitted where lower courts misapprehend substance and quality of evidence causing miscarriage of justice.
|
17 June 2020 |
|
Statutory rape conviction quashed because prosecution failed to prove the victim's age; particulars are not evidence.
* Criminal law – Statutory rape (s.130(1)(2)(e), s.131 Penal Code) – proof of victim's age is essential. * Evidence – Personal particulars/PF3 given prior to oath are not evidence. * Burden of proof – prosecution must lead cogent sworn evidence (victim, parent, medical practitioner, teacher or birth certificate) to prove age. * Appeals – a general ground of failure to prove the case may permit consideration of related issues not specifically argued below. * Remedy – conviction may be quashed where an essential element is unproved; retrial may be unjustified.
|
16 June 2020 |
|
High Court's failure to consider an apparent illegality warranted granting the appellant extension of time to appeal.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time to appeal – section 361(2) CPA – good cause requirement; apparent illegality as sufficient ground. * Trial irregularity – succession of presiding magistrates – possible non‑compliance with section 214(1) CPA. * Appellate review – interference where exercise of discretion ignores important factors or misapplies principle. * Revisional powers – Court may suo motu invoke s.4(2) AJA to grant relief.
|
15 June 2020 |
|
Appeal defects cured by ordering supplementary record under overriding objective and appellate rules, with costs to respondent.
* Civil procedure – Appeal competence – Notice of appeal and memorandum correctly specifying the impugned judgment – Incomplete record – omission of impugned judgment.
* Appellate practice – Rule 111 (amendment) and Rule 96(7) (supplementary record) – discretionary relief.
* Overriding objective – use to cure procedural defects to avoid undue delay in probate matters.
* Costs – defective appeals amended at appellant's risk.
|
15 June 2020 |
|
Extension of time granted for filing appeal documents due to technical delay and inconsequential omission to cite a rule.
Court of Appeal—extension of time—technical delay where applicant pursued related proceedings—omission to cite a Rule cured under proviso to Rule 48(1)—promptness and absence of mala fides justify grant of extension.
|
10 June 2020 |
|
A non-party purchaser may seek revision; extension granted after accounting for actual delay and minor formal errors.
* Civil procedure – Revision – Non-party affected by a decision may apply for revision where no right of appeal exists. * Extension of time – Rule 65(4) – Distinction between actual delay (excusable where applicant was unaware) and technical delay (not attributable to applicant). * Preliminary objections – Typographical errors in party names and formal defects should not defeat substantive justice.
|
10 June 2020 |
|
Appellate court quashed a 20-year sentence for failure to consider appellant's guilty plea and time spent in remand.
Sentencing discretion — appellate interference where trial court overlooked material mitigating factors (guilty plea, time in remand) — importation of extraneous facts at sentencing aggravating offence — quashing and substituting sentence to effect immediate release.
|
5 June 2020 |
|
Appellate court set aside a 20-year manslaughter sentence for failure to consider guilty plea and remand time, ordering immediate release.
Criminal law — Sentencing discretion — appellate interference where trial court overlooked material mitigating factors (guilty plea; remand custody) — importation of extraneous facts into sentencing — manslaughter sentence set aside and substituted with immediate release.
|
1 June 2020 |
| May 2020 |
|
|
Failure to hear parties before deciding a newly raised jurisdictional issue rendered the High Court's appeal proceedings a nullity.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objection – pure point of law – scope and limits of disposing appeals by preliminary objection.
* Appellate procedure – raising jurisdictional issues suo motu while composing judgment – duty to give parties an opportunity to be heard.
* Constitutional right to be heard – Article 13(6)(a) – breach renders proceedings a nullity.
* Authenticity of court documents – effect of alleged doctored decree on competence of appeal.
|
11 May 2020 |
|
The respondent was entitled to repatriation expenses and subsistence; appeal against High Court award dismissed with costs.
* Employment law – repatriation expenses and subsistence allowances – proof requirements and employer's records; appellate review on weight of evidence; evidence of distance for transport calculations (TANROADS). * Proof of salary – salary slip not always required where amount is uncontroverted and employer holds records. * Procedural – unchallenged trial evidence should not be disturbed on appeal.
|
11 May 2020 |
| April 2020 |
|
|
Extension of time denied where applicant failed to account for delay and show arguable grounds for review.
Extension of time — Rule 10 — good cause requires accounting for each day of delay; Technical delay distinguished from actual delay; Review preconditions — Rule 66(1) — must show manifest error, denial of hearing, nullity, lack of jurisdiction or illegality/fraud/perjury; Pleading and evidential requirements for alleging illegality or denial of hearing; Admissibility/expunction of exhibits and need for arguable grounds at extension stage.
|
10 April 2020 |
|
Appeal was timeous under section 361(1) CPA; High Court erred and must rehear the appeal on its merits.
* Criminal procedure — computation of time for filing appeals — section 361(1) CPA — exclusion of time to obtain proceedings, judgment or order appealed against. * Appeal procedure — notice of intention to appeal and lodging petition — compliance with statutory timelines. * Natural justice — right to be heard (audi alteram partem) — appellate dismissal without hearing renders decision a nullity.
|
2 April 2020 |
| March 2020 |
|
|
Rule 10 cannot revive an appeal deemed dismissed or compel record supply or acquittal.
* Civil procedure – Court of Appeal – application for extension of time under Rule 10 – scope limited to enlarging time for acts required by the Rules.
* Appeal procedure – notice of appeal – institution of appeal by notice – Registrar’s duty to prepare and serve record of appeal.
* Criminal appeals – withdrawal under Rule 77(1) – withdrawal deemed dismissal – Rule 10 cannot resuscitate a deemed-dismissed appeal.
* Reliefs beyond Rule 10 (compelling record supply or ordering acquittal) are misconceived.
|
31 March 2020 |
|
Pleas of guilty must be unequivocal and pleadings must disclose the weapon-use ingredient of armed robbery; equivocal pleas render convictions nullities.
Criminal law — Plea of guilty — Plea must be unequivocal and admit every essential ingredient of the offence; repetition of particulars without elaboration insufficient — Armed robbery — prosecution must narrate how weapon was used (threat or injury) — Appealability of guilty pleas where plea is ambiguous — Appellate jurisdiction — exercise of revisional powers under s.4(2) AJA where first appellate court omitted to determine initiated appeal.
|
31 March 2020 |
|
Plea of guilty must be unequivocal and admit all ingredients of armed robbery; failure to do so renders conviction a nullity.
Criminal law – Plea of guilty – Requirement that plea be unequivocal and admit all constituent elements – Armed robbery – Narration of facts must disclose use/threat with weapon and identity of victim – Trial and appellate courts’ duty to ensure admissions establish prima facie ingredients – Revision under s.4(2) AJA where first appellate court overlooks initiated appeals.
|
31 March 2020 |
|
Application to extend time to revive a deemed-dismissed appeal due to registrar delay was misconceived and struck out.
* Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules – Rule 10: extension of time limited to acts authorized by the Rules.
* Appeal procedure – Registrar’s duty to prepare and serve record of appeal – Registrar’s delay does not automatically justify fresh notice of appeal.
* Procedural consequence – Withdrawal under Rule 77(1) results in appeal being deemed dismissed and cannot be resurrected by Rule 10.
* Extension of time – applicant must show good cause; remedies exist to compel Registrar rather than re-initiate appeal.
|
31 March 2020 |
|
Plea of guilty must clearly admit every ingredient; failure to show how weapon was used vitiates conviction.
Criminal law — Armed robbery — Plea of guilty — Plea must be an unequivocal admission of every ingredient of the offence — Narration of facts in support of plea must specify how weapon was used (threat or injury) and against whom — Typographical/record errors do not cure substantive failure to inform accused — Appellate and revisional jurisdiction under s.4(2) AJA to quash convictions and order re-arraignment where first appeal overlooked matters arising from filed notice of intention to appeal.
|
28 March 2020 |
|
Leave granted to amend notice of appeal under Rule 111 to omit two appellants; service objection dismissed.
Civil procedure — Appeal — Amendment of notice of appeal under Rule 111 — Leave to omit parties no longer interested; service of process — attempted service and failure to file reply affidavit.
|
27 March 2020 |
|
Appeal was incompetent for failure to give notice within ten days; High Court should have struck out, not dismissed, and its order was quashed.
Criminal procedure – Appeal – Requirement to give notice of intention to appeal within ten days under s.361(1)(a) CPA – Failure renders appeal to High Court incompetent – Remedy is to strike out incompetent appeal so appellant may apply for extension under s.361(2) – High Court's dismissal instead of striking out is unlawful – Court may quash proceedings and order reprocessing.
|
27 March 2020 |
|
An appeal filed without the statutory ten-day notice is incompetent and should be struck out, not dismissed; appellant may apply for extension.
Criminal procedure – appeal competence – requirement to give notice of intention to appeal within ten days under s.361(1)(a) CPA – failure to give notice renders appeal incompetent – incompetent appeals should be struck out not dismissed – right to apply for extension under s.361(2) CPA.
|
27 March 2020 |
|
Failure to read a newly introduced charge and record a plea violates fair trial and renders proceedings a nullity.
Criminal procedure - Section 228(1) CPA - duty to state substance of charge and take plea when a charge is altered or newly introduced; failure to read charge and take plea vitiates trial; fair trial requirements; retrial ordered; credit for time served.
|
27 March 2020 |
|
Victim's credible testimony and corroborative medical and parental evidence upheld the applicant's child rape conviction and life sentence.
* Criminal law – Rape of a child – Credibility of prosecutrix – Corroboration by parent and medical evidence (PF.3).
* Criminal procedure – Failure to cross-examine treated as acceptance of evidence.
* Right to interpreter – Late complaint and non‑raised issue at trial appellate courts.
* Sentencing – Statutory life sentence for rape of a child under section 131(3) Penal Code.
|
27 March 2020 |
|
Apparent illegality from an unpleaded issue justified extension of time for the applicant to seek a certificate on a point of law.
Civil procedure — Extension of time (Rule 10) — Good cause — Illegality apparent on face of record — Trial judge raising and deciding unpleaded issue; Rule 48 — omission to cite specific rule curable.
|
27 March 2020 |
|
An executing court may not review a final Conciliation Board/Minister decision; proceedings doing so are nullities.
Labour law – Security of Employment Act – enforcement of Conciliation Board/Minister decisions under s.28(1)(c) and s.28(2) – executing court lacks jurisdiction to review or vary final Board/Minister determinations – proceedings founded on such review are nullities; matter remitted for proper execution.
|
25 March 2020 |
|
Primary Court lacked jurisdiction to hear adultery damages absent proof of customary or Islamic marriage; appeal dismissed.
Primary Court jurisdiction – Adultery damages – Law of Marriage Act ss.75,76,109 and 160 – Primary Court jurisdiction limited to customary or Islamic marriages in miscellaneous actions – Magistrates' Courts Act s.18 misapplied.
|
25 March 2020 |
|
Appellant failed to prove adverse possession; submissions are not evidence and appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law – Adverse possession – Requirement to prove abandonment, actual and uninterrupted possession, animus possidendi and statutory period; Limitation – 12 years, time runs from dispossession (s.9(2) LLA); Evidence – submissions are not admissible as additional evidence unless properly ordered under s.34 LDA.
|
20 March 2020 |
|
Appellant failed to prove adverse possession; appellate submissions do not substitute for admissible evidence, appeal dismissed.
Land law – adverse possession – elements required (abandonment, actual possession, animus, uninterrupted statutory period) ; Law of Limitation Act s.3(1) and s.9(2) – time runs from dispossession; Evidence – submissions on appeal are not additional evidence under s.34(1) LDA without formal order; Failure to prove commencement date of occupation is fatal to adverse possession claim.
|
19 March 2020 |
|
Appellant failed to prove adverse possession; written submissions are not admissible additional evidence; appeal dismissed.
* Land law – Adverse possession – requirements: abandonment by true owner; actual, open and uninterrupted possession; animus possidendi; statutory period (12 years) – Limitation Act s.3(1), s.9(2). * Evidence – additional evidence on appeal – admissibility only when properly ordered and recorded under s.34(1) LDA; submissions are not evidence (Morandi Rutakyamirwa; Karmali test).
|
19 March 2020 |
| February 2020 |
|
|
Certificate of title is conclusive ownership; licensees cannot claim adverse possession or defeat eviction by limitation.
Land law – Certificate of title under land titles system is conclusive proof of ownership; challenge for alleged fraudulent registration requires cogent proof and appropriate procedural steps (e.g., counterclaim/join registrar); limitation – permissionary/consensual occupation is not adverse possession and does not bar owner's eviction claim; jurisdiction – High Court rightly ordered vacant possession against licensees.
|
25 February 2020 |
|
Appeal dismissed: subordinate court had jurisdiction and prosecution proved unlawful entry, possession, hunting and trophies.
* Criminal law – Economic offences – Jurisdiction of subordinate courts under EOCC Act – requirement of DPP’s certificate (s.12(3)) and consent (s.26(1)).
* Evidence – sufficiency of prosecution case – credibility of arresting officers and wildlife valuer – concurrent findings of fact.
* Procedure – omission of certificate of seizure and sketch map – not necessarily fatal where circumstances and witnesses justify exhibits.
* Statutory construction – incorrect citation of Wildlife Conservation Act provision – curable irregularity where offence and penalty are clear.
|
25 February 2020 |
|
Assessor’s participation in quashed proceedings vitiated trial; moonlight identification and retracted statement insufficient to sustain conviction.
Criminal law – murder – retrial – participation of an assessor who sat in previously quashed proceedings vitiates retrial; judge cannot cure by disregarding parts of proceedings – identification evidence at night by moonlight must explain intensity and meet Waziri Amani criteria – retracted cautioned statement requires independent corroboration before it can ground conviction.
|
25 February 2020 |