|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2009 |
|
|
Conviction based solely on unreliable night-time visual identification by torchlight was unsafe; conviction, sentence and compensation quashed.
* Criminal law – visual identification – night-time identification by torchlight – requirement to detail source and intensity of light, distance and duration of observation. * Identification evidence – Waziri Amani principle – convictions unsafe without elimination of mistaken identity. * Appeal – conviction quashed where identification evidence was weak.
|
26 November 2009 |
|
The applicant’s revision was struck out with costs for procedural non-compliance, delay, and failure to state grounds.
* Civil procedure – Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 45(1) – mandatory requirement to state grounds in notice of motion – failure renders application incompetent.
* Time limits – Revision applications must be filed within 60 days – application filed after 83 days held time-barred.
* Parties – signature of applicant/party on notice and affidavit required to constitute party to application.
* Appellate remedy – where appeal (with leave) is available, revision is inappropriate absent good reason.
* Relief – application struck out with costs for procedural non-compliance.
|
5 November 2009 |
|
Guarding to prevent interruption of a rape amounts to abetment; gang rape conviction and mandatory life sentences upheld.
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Gang rape (s.131A(1)) – Abetment by guarding premises – Victim’s evidence sufficient without medical report – Relatives’ testimony competent – Police witness credibility – Mandatory life sentence under s.131A(2).
|
5 November 2009 |
|
Improper, terse summing up to assessors that risks influencing their independence renders the trial proceedings a nullity and mandates retrial.
Criminal procedure — Summing up to assessors — Compliance with s.298(1) Criminal Procedure Act — Point-form summing up lacking elaboration may improperly influence assessors — Trial rendered nullity and retrial ordered.
|
4 November 2009 |
|
Night-time identification and an uncorroborated dying declaration made the murder conviction unsafe; alibi was not properly considered.
* Criminal law – visual identification at night – reliability and need for caution.
* Corroboration – incredible or discrepant evidence cannot be corroborated by other equally suspect evidence.
* Dying declaration – requires corroboration before conviction can safely rest on it.
* Defence of alibi – trial court must fairly consider and analyze defence evidence; perfunctory rejection may render conviction unsafe.
* Evidence – absence of physical exhibits may weaken prosecution case.
|
3 November 2009 |
|
Malice aforethought found: concealed weapon, targeted blow to head, confession corroborated; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Murder – Malice aforethought: proof by intent or grievous harm; Cautioned statement – admissibility and voluntariness; Confession corroboration by eyewitness and post-mortem; Trial procedure – trial-within-a-trial obligation and effect of no timely objection.
|
2 November 2009 |
|
Appeal dismissed after counsel withdrew because appellant had pleaded guilty and extension to appeal was refused.
* Criminal procedure – appeal arising from conviction entered on guilty plea – effect of guilty plea on appealability of conviction; * Civil procedure – withdrawal of appeal – Rule 70(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 1979; * Extension of time – High Court refusal to extend time to file appeal and its impact on appellate remedy.
|
2 November 2009 |
|
Court affirms conviction: reliable identification and participation evidence upheld despite no recovered property.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Visual identification evidence; reliability and Waziri Amani safeguards; immediate reporting and subsequent identification; conviction without recovery of stolen property where participation is established; appellate review of concurrent findings.
|
2 November 2009 |
| October 2009 |
|
|
Uncorroborated retracted confession and unsafe visual identification rendered the convictions unsustainable.
* Criminal law – identification evidence – visual/dock identification – Waziri Amani safeguards (time, distance, lighting, prior knowledge, identification parade). * Criminal procedure – cautioned statements – retracted confessions require corroboration; dangerous to rely without independent proof. * Evidence – expert opinion on firearms/ballistics – competency under s.47(1) and need to tender ballistic report. * Convictions unsafe where key forensic or corroborative evidence is absent.
|
30 October 2009 |
|
Late filing of notice of intention to appeal without recorded extension renders appeal incompetent; High Court must record exercise of proviso.
Criminal Procedure Act s.361(a) – mandatory notice of intention to appeal within ten days – proviso allows High Court to admit appeal out of time for good cause but exercise must appear on record and follow procedural fairness; failure to comply renders appeal incompetent; appellate revision under AJA s.4(3).
|
30 October 2009 |
|
Intoxication/insanity defence failed; appellant’s confession and conduct showed understanding and intent, appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Murder – conviction upheld where accused’s caution and extra-judicial statements show planning, memory and intent. * Intoxication – defence under s.14(2)(b) Penal Code requires proof that accused did not understand the act; not established where detailed recollection exists. * Insanity – definition under s.13 Penal Code; procedural requirement to raise insanity at plea under s.219(1) Criminal Procedure Act. * Evidence – admissible confessions and post-mortem findings sufficient to prove murder.
|
29 October 2009 |
|
Failure to state grounds in the Notice of Motion, as required by Rule 45 and Form A, renders the application incompetent and is fatal.
Civil procedure – Notice of Motion – Rule 45(1) and Form A require grounds to be stated in the Notice; supporting affidavits cannot replace grounds; Rule 46(1) – affidavits for facts; failure to state grounds is a fatal/incompetent notice; Court’s inherent power to entertain preliminary objections to prevent abuse of process.
|
28 October 2009 |
|
Voir dire omission was improper but non‑prejudicial; eyewitness and medical evidence upheld conviction and life sentence; compensation awarded.
* Criminal law – Rape of a child under ten – Eye‑witness evidence and medical corroboration – sufficiency and credibility of evidence.
* Evidence law – Voir dire under section 127(2) Law of Evidence Act – requirement to record questions and answers; non‑compliance improper but not necessarily fatal.
* Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act inapplicable; section 131(3) Penal Code prescribes life imprisonment for rape of a girl under ten.
* Appellate powers – Court may exercise revisional powers to order compensation under section 348A and Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.4(3).
|
28 October 2009 |
|
Reported
Extension granted where isolated procedural lapses did not prove lack of diligence by counsel.
Court of Appeal — Application for extension of time under Rule 8 — Meaning of diligence includes document preparation and court attendance; isolated procedural errors (e.g., defective jurat) do not necessarily show lack of diligence — Review by single Justice not appropriate for full-Court decisions — Applicability of Rule 89(2) to records in second appeals.
|
28 October 2009 |
|
Applicant granted extension to seek review; isolated procedural errors by counsel did not demonstrate lack of diligence.
Court of Appeal rules – extension of time under Rule 8 – adequacy of reasons for delay; Advocate's diligence – defects in affidavits/jurats not automatically gross negligence; Review of Court decisions – single Justice cannot review; Applicability of Rule 89(2) in second appeals and prospects of review.
|
28 October 2009 |
|
Application for stay of execution dismissed as time-barred for being filed after the 60-day limit.
* Civil procedure — Stay of execution — Sixty-day time limit for filing applications to stay execution — Leave required to file out of time.
* Preliminary objections — Time bar — Competence of application — Effect of decree execution on remedy.
|
27 October 2009 |
|
Extension of time granted where a timely-filed notice of appeal was misplaced and the applicant showed due diligence.
* Criminal procedure – extension of time to file notice of appeal – notice allegedly filed but misplaced – affidavits from applicant and prison officer – sufficiency of diligence to justify extension.
|
27 October 2009 |
|
Detailed confession and conduct showed intoxication did not amount to insanity; murder conviction and death sentence upheld.
Criminal law – Murder – Confession and extra-judicial statements as proof of malice aforethought; Intoxication – When it amounts to temporary insanity under s.14(2)(b) Penal Code; Insanity defence – requirement to raise at plea (s.219(1) CPA); Appellate re-evaluation of trial evidence.
|
27 October 2009 |
|
Failure to state grounds in a notice of motion under Rule 45(1) is a fatal procedural defect rendering the application incompetent.
Procedure – Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 – Rule 45(1) requirement that notice of motion must state grounds – mandatory compliance – failure to state grounds renders notice incurably defective and application incompetent; Rule 45(2) "substantially" in Form A does not excuse omission of mandatory elements; discretion to overlook technical non-compliance limited where rule is clear.
|
27 October 2009 |
|
Convictions quashed where eyewitness identification lacked required detailed description and risked mistaken identity.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Eyewitness who first sees accused must give detailed description – Risk of mistaken identity – Insufficient identification vitiates conviction.
|
26 October 2009 |
|
Non‑service of a notice of appeal under Rule 77(1) renders the appeal incompetent and is struck out.
Court of Appeal Rules 1979 — Rule 77(1) — mandatory service of notice of appeal — non‑compliance renders intended appeal incompetent — striking out — costs follow the event.
|
26 October 2009 |
|
Failure to state grounds in a Notice of Motion (Rule 45) is fatal; supporting affidavits cannot substitute for the required grounds.
Civil procedure – Notice of Motion – Rule 45(1) and Form A require grounds of application to be stated in the Notice – Rule 46(1) affidavits supply facts, not grounds – Failure to state grounds is incurably defective – Court’s inherent power (Rule 3(2)) to entertain preliminary objections to prevent abuse of process.
|
26 October 2009 |
|
Circumstantial evidence must irresistibly point to guilt; missing exhibits and procedural defects warranted quashing conviction.
* Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – must be inconsistent with innocence and point irresistibly to guilt. * Corroboration – failure to tender key exhibit (sisal rope) and absence of primary village and medical witnesses weakens prosecution case. * Identification – lack of parade and reliance on single witness undermines proof. * Procedure – magistrate with extended jurisdiction may impose High Court sentences; forwarding for confirmation under repealed provision invalid.
|
26 October 2009 |
|
Circumstantial evidence and unproven common intention insufficient to sustain murder conviction; juvenile death sentence unlawful.
* Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – application of Musoke test: each link must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.* Criminal law – Common intention (s.23 Penal Code) – must prove unlawful common purpose and participation.* Sentencing – Juvenile offender – death sentence unlawful where offender under 18; proper disposition is detention during President's pleasure (s.26(2) Penal Code).* Procedure – s.175(1) Criminal Procedure Act repealed; no requirement to forward death-penalty files to High Court.
|
26 October 2009 |
|
Court grants extension of time, holding that isolated procedural errors do not necessarily show lack of diligence.
Civil procedure — Extension of time under Rule 8 — Requirement to show sufficient reasons — Meaning of diligence (attendance and document preparation) — Defective jurats and procedural mistakes do not automatically demonstrate lack of diligence — Prospects of success to be assessed on adequate material.
|
26 October 2009 |
|
Appeal dismissed under Rule 70(1) after appellant withdrew the main case and the respondent did not object.
Criminal appeal — withdrawal under Rule 70(1) Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 — dismissal of appeal where main trial charge withdrawn and respondent unopposed.
|
19 October 2009 |
| September 2009 |
|
|
A defective armed-robbery charge omitting the victim/target of force rendered the trial null and warranted the appellants' release.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Particulars of charge – failure to state against whom force was used – omission of essential ingredient – particulars must disclose essential elements – defect not curable under s.388(1) Criminal Procedure Act – proceedings null ab initio – remedy: nullification under Rule 38 and release.
|
30 September 2009 |
| February 2009 |
|
|
Formal titling lapses do not nullify a transfer to a magistrate; respondent failed to prove appellant's vessel caused the accident.
Civil procedure – Transfer of appeals – High Court directing transfer to Resident Magistrate with extended jurisdiction – failure to re-register or retitle proceedings – formal irregularity not fatal; Evidence – identification of vessel causing collision – insufficiency of eyewitness identification, hearsay and omissions – failure to prove causation on balance of probabilities; Appellate review – reversal of trial court credibility findings improper where evidence was insufficient.
|
10 February 2009 |