|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2011 |
|
|
Conviction based mainly on uncertain night-time visual identification was unsafe; appeal allowed and convictions quashed.
Criminal law – Identification at night – Visual identification – Insufficiency of details about light source, distance and duration – Risk of mistaken identity – Conviction quashed.
|
26 September 2011 |
| July 2011 |
|
|
Conviction for murder reduced to manslaughter where facts showed mutual fight, sentence of 20 years imposed for brutal killing.
Criminal law – murder vs manslaughter – provocation and self-defence – extra-judicial statement – absence of malice aforethought – mutual fight reducing murder to manslaughter – sentencing for brutal killing and desecration of corpse.
|
1 July 2011 |
|
The applicant's convictions for abduction and rape were upheld; PF3 admissible after the applicant waived right to call the doctor.
* Criminal law – Abduction – Elements under section 134: unlawful removal of an unmarried girl under 16/18 from lawful custody without parental consent. * Criminal law – Rape – Evidence: PF3 medical report as corroboration; admission when accused waives right to summon doctor (Criminal Procedure Act s.240(3)). * Evidence – Sexual offences involving minors: section 127(7) Evidence Act permits conviction on uncorroborated testimony of complainant under 18 if believed. * Procedural – Non‑attendance of investigating police officers is not necessarily fatal to prosecution.
|
1 July 2011 |
|
Appeal dismissed: abduction and rape convictions upheld; PF3 admissible after accused waived right to call doctor.
Criminal law – Abduction under section 134 Penal Code; Rape – admissibility and corroboration of complainant’s evidence; Evidence Act s.127(7) – convictions on uncorroborated evidence of victims under 18; Criminal Procedure Act s.240(3) – accused’s right to have medical witness summoned and waiver; absence of police witnesses not fatal where competent prosecution witnesses testify.
|
1 July 2011 |
| June 2011 |
|
|
Appeal dismissed: daylight identification by known witnesses and common intention affirmed convictions for murder.
* Criminal law – visual identification – reliability where incident in broad daylight, witnesses knew accused by name, close range and sufficient time; * Criminal procedure – delay in reporting identification – unexplained delay may affect credibility but next‑day report was adequate; * Evidence – descriptive particulars not always necessary where witnesses know accused; * Criminal liability – common intention in group attack renders all participants guilty of murder.
|
30 June 2011 |
|
Rape conviction upheld: victim’s credible testimony and committee admission established guilt; consent immaterial due to victim’s age.
* Criminal law – Rape – Proof of penetration – Complainant’s testimony alone may suffice to establish penetration (s.130(4)(a)).; * Evidence – Corroboration – Admission recorded in school committee minutes corroborating complainant’s account.; * Evidence – Cautioned statement – Wrongly admitted but not decisive where other evidence suffices.; * Criminal law – Consent immaterial where complainant is underage (s.130(2)(e)).; * Appellate review – Concurrent findings of fact will not be disturbed absent misapprehension or misdirection.
|
30 June 2011 |
|
Admissibility of PF3 and sufficiency of unsworn child and family testimony upheld rape conviction; sodomy count quashed.
Criminal law – sexual offences – admissibility of PF3 under s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act; unsworn child evidence and voir dire (s.127(2) Evidence Act); corroboration requirement for unnatural offence; competence and credibility of family witnesses; age determination under Children and Young Persons Act; appellate interference with sentence and mandatory corporal punishment and compensation.
|
30 June 2011 |
|
|
30 June 2011 |
|
Court granted stay of execution, dismissing procedural objection and finding applicants would suffer irreparable hardship.
Civil procedure — Stay of execution pending appeal — Rule 11(2)(d): good cause, irreparable/substantial loss, balance of convenience; Court's discretion to relieve non-compliance with procedural timelines (Rule 106(1), Rule 34, Rule 4(2)(b)).
|
30 June 2011 |
|
|
29 June 2011 |
|
The appellants' appeal dismissed: reliable identification, admissions and recovered property proved armed robbery.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – identification of accused – visual identification under lamp light and familiarity; applying Waziri Amani guidelines; * Criminal law – Recent possession – recovery of stolen property from accused’s homes and failure to account; * Criminal procedure – Search without warrant – s.42(3) Criminal Procedure Act and voluntary conduct leading to recovery; * Evidence – voluntariness and admissibility of cautioned statements; * Appellate review – second appeal standard and interference with concurrent findings of fact.
|
29 June 2011 |
|
Conviction for rape of a 14-year-old pupil upheld on credible single-witness evidence despite procedural irregularities.
Criminal law – rape – sufficiency of single credible witness; admissibility of cautioned statements; PF3 inadmissible where s.240(3) rights not observed; consent immaterial for victim under 16; appellate restraint on concurrent factual findings.
|
29 June 2011 |
|
Appeals dismissed: recent possession, monitored calls and common intention sustained armed robbery convictions.
Criminal law – armed robbery – doctrine of recent possession – common intention – admissibility of extra‑judicial and cautioned statements – reliability of identification and monitored telephone evidence – appellate interference with trial conduct.
|
29 June 2011 |
|
DNA evidence alone was insufficient without detailed statistics; corroborative confessions and discovery upheld murder convictions.
Criminal law – murder – admissibility and weight of DNA profiling evidence – necessity for statistical probabilities and full methodology; retracted cautioned and extra‑judicial confessions – requirement of corroboration; confession leading to discovery; conduct of accused as corroboration; doctrine of common intention.
|
29 June 2011 |
|
An uncorroborated confession that implicates an acquitted co‑accused rendered the murder conviction unsafe; appeal allowed.
Criminal law – confession admissibility and voluntariness (s.27 Evidence Act) – trial‑within‑a‑trial procedure and timing; assessors – improper summing up and prejudice; sufficiency of uncorroborated confession where implicated co‑accused acquitted; conviction unsafe; appeal allowed.
|
28 June 2011 |
|
DNA evidence was insufficiently quantified, but corroborated confessions and discovery upheld convictions and sentences.
* Criminal law – murder – admissibility and sufficiency of DNA evidence – requirement for random occurrence ratio and detailed profiling methodology.
* Evidence – retracted cautioned/extra-judicial confessions – corroboration by confession leading to discovery, conduct and independent witnesses.
* Criminal liability – doctrine of common intention – application where co-accused participated in a planned killing and concealment.
|
28 June 2011 |
|
Appeal dismissed where accomplice confession was corroborated and alibi disproved by custody records.
Criminal law – Armed robbery; accomplice evidence – competence and corroboration (s.142 Evidence Act); possession of stolen property; alibi and custody records; burden of proof.
|
28 June 2011 |
|
|
27 June 2011 |
|
|
27 June 2011 |
|
Equivocal guilty plea failing to admit essential elements invalidates conviction; release ordered pending DPP decision.
Criminal law — Plea of guilty — Equivocal plea — All ingredients of offence must be admitted — s.228 Criminal Procedure Act — s.130(2)(e) Penal Code (age and marital status exception) — Conviction unsafe if plea does not admit essential elements — DPP discretion on further proceedings.
|
27 June 2011 |
|
|
24 June 2011 |
|
Possession of unauthorised firearms is an economic offence; subordinate courts need a DPP certificate to have jurisdiction.
Economic offences – possession of unauthorised firearm and ammunition under Arms and Ammunition Act falls within EOCCA; jurisdiction of High Court as Economic Crimes Court; requirement of DPP’s certificate under sections 12(3) and 12(5) to confer jurisdiction on subordinate courts; absence of certificate renders proceedings a nullity.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
Appellants' convictions quashed: subordinate-court trial null for lack of DPP certificate required for economic offences.
* Criminal law – Jurisdiction – Economic and Organised Crime Control Act – possession of firearms and ammunition classified as economic offence – requirement of DPP certificate under s.12(3) and s.12(5) to confer jurisdiction on subordinate courts – absence renders proceedings nullity.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
Appellant's rape conviction upheld on credible complainant testimony and slight penetration; compensation ordered.
* Criminal law – Rape – Complainant's credible testimony and proof of penetration (slight penetration sufficient under s.130(4)(a) Penal Code).
* Evidence – Credibility and contradictions – Minor inconsistencies do not necessarily vitiate a conviction.
* Forensic medical report (PF3) – Probative value affected where accused not informed of right to summon doctor under s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act.
* Evidence Act s.127(7) – Single credible witness may suffice to convict.
* Sentencing/revision – Court's power under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act to order compensation under s.131(1) Penal Code.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
|
23 June 2011 |
|
Arrest at the scene and an oral admission established identity and justified upholding the armed robbery conviction.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification – Arrest at the scene by eyewitnesses negates mistaken identity defence. * Criminal procedure – Oral admissions – Value of spontaneous oral admission following arrest. * Evidence – Failure to call investigating officer and tendering exhibits – Non-prejudicial where identity established by eyewitnesses. * Appellate review – Omission to record express consideration of defence not necessarily fatal where prosecution case is strong.
|
23 June 2011 |
|
|
22 June 2011 |
|
Concurrent factual findings upheld; appellant’s rape conviction sustained despite procedural error relating to PF3.
* Criminal law – Rape of a child – Evidence and corroboration – Victim and eyewitness testimony supported by medical signs and admission of flight.
* Criminal procedure – PF3 (medical report) – Mandatory notice under s.240(3) Criminal Procedure Act; procedural non‑compliance may render PF3 vulnerable but does not necessarily overturn conviction if other evidence suffices.
* Appeals – Concurrent findings of fact – appellate interference only where misapprehension or misdirection shown.
|
21 June 2011 |
|
|
20 June 2011 |
|
Mere presence at an armed robbery scene, without evidence of active participation, is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Sufficiency of evidence – Mere presence at scene insufficient for conviction; need evidence of active participation, instigation or assistance; cautioned statement improperly admitted if read before formal admission.
|
20 June 2011 |
|
Child's evidence improperly received under s.127(2) and unresolved contradictions left conviction unsustainable.
* Evidence Act s.127(2) – voire dire — reception of evidence from a child of tender years — requirements recorded in proceedings
* Credibility — contradictions in witness testimony — trial court must resolve inconsistencies on the record
* Corroboration — medical evidence of bruising and intact hymen insufficient alone to prove penetration
* Appellate review — interference with findings of fact where lower courts misapprehend evidence
|
20 June 2011 |
|
Torchlight visual ID is weak alone; earliest ID plus recent possession and peculiar marks can uphold conviction.
Criminal law – visual identification by torchlight – reliability; identification at earliest opportunity; doctrine of recent possession; identification of stolen property by peculiar marks; accused’s conduct (flight, disowning) as corroborative evidence.
|
20 June 2011 |
|
Torchlight ID is weak, but prompt consistent ID and recent possession of uniquely marked property upheld conviction.
* Criminal law – Robbery – Visual identification by torchlight – generally weak and unsafe if relied on alone. * Identification – Naming suspect at earliest opportunity and consistency thereafter increases reliability. * Evidence – Recovery of uniquely marked property at accused’s premises sustains doctrine of recent possession. * Conduct – Flight and initial disowning of recovered items may justify adverse inference against accused.
|
20 June 2011 |
|
Conviction for rape on uncorroborated single-witness evidence unsafe where trial court failed to record reasons for believing that witness.
Evidence – Sexual offences – Conviction on single witness – s.127(7) Law of Evidence Act requires trial court to record reasons for believing a lone witness; failure requires appellate re-evaluation of credibility; delay in reporting and cohabitation may undermine complainant’s credibility; benefit of doubt to accused.
|
20 June 2011 |
|
A conviction on uncorroborated single-witness evidence without recorded reasons is unsafe; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
* Evidence Act s.127(7) – single-witness convictions permissible but require recorded reasons for believing witness; credibility assessment essential. * Sexual offences – need for corroboration or careful scrutiny where complainant is sole witness; long delay and plausible defence may raise reasonable doubt. * Appellate duty – where trial court fails to give required reasons, appellate court must reassess evidence independently.
|
20 June 2011 |
|
Recent possession of stolen goods found at the appellant’s house upheld convictions; appeals dismissed.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Doctrine of recent possession – Stolen property recovered at accused’s house shortly after theft supports inference of guilt where no reasonable explanation is given; identification and tracing evidence strengthen prosecution case. * Procedure – Evidential irregularity – Absence of formal seizure certificate not necessarily fatal where chain of events and identification evidence remain intact. * Defence – Alibi and late ownership claims may be rejected if inconsistent with recovery and witness testimony.
|
20 June 2011 |
|
A defective charge omitting the violence element invalidated the armed robbery conviction.
Criminal law — charge particulars — armed robbery (s.287A) — essential element of use or threat of violence must be alleged; defective charge prejudices accused; second appeal may disturb concurrent findings where miscarriage of justice or misapprehension of evidence occurs.
|
18 June 2011 |
|
|
18 June 2011 |
|
A conviction on uncorroborated complainant evidence must be supported by recorded reasons; absence requires re-evaluation and may lead to acquittal.
* Evidence Act s.127(7) – conviction on sole witness in sexual offences – requirement to record reasons for believing the witness.
* Criminal law – sexual offences – need for caution and corroboration relaxed but reasons must be recorded.
* Evidence – credibility assessment – effect of long delay in reporting and cohabitation on complainant’s credibility.
* Criminal appeal – appellate duty to re-evaluate evidence where trial court’s reasoning is inadequate.
|
18 June 2011 |
|
Nighttime torchlight identification and prior acquaintance were held insufficient; conviction and sentence quashed.
Criminal law — Identification evidence — Visual identification at night and torchlight — Prior acquaintance insufficient without descriptive particulars — Failure to name suspect at earliest opportunity undermines reliability.
|
16 June 2011 |
|
Appellate court quashed murder conviction because identification evidence was unsafe and witnesses failed to name suspect promptly.
* Criminal law – identification evidence – visual identification at night – reliability concerns where scene was dark, many assailants and identification relied on torchlight.
* Criminal procedure – failure to name suspect at earliest opportunity – adverse inference on witness reliability.
* Conviction unsafe where identification evidence is weak – appellate intervention to quash conviction and set aside sentence.
|
15 June 2011 |
|
DNA evidence alone is not conclusive; corroborative circumstantial evidence can safely sustain a murder conviction.
Criminal law – murder – admissibility and weight of DNA evidence – need for random occurrence ratio and caution against the prosecutor's fallacy; summing-up to assessors – adequacy of presentation of contradictory police statements; circumstantial evidence – recovery of blood-stained clothing, ownership, and accused's lies as corroboration.
|
11 June 2011 |
| May 2011 |
|
|
Convictions quashed where murder proof relied on excluded confessions and derivative evidence; prosecution failed to meet its burden.
* Criminal law – Murder – Sufficiency of evidence – Conviction unsafe where primary confessions and cautioned statements excluded and remaining evidence is derivative or insufficient.
* Evidence – Admissibility and weight of confessions – Non-compliant or unreliable confessions cannot ground conviction.
* Criminal procedure – Role of trial judge when summing up to assessors – judge must not direct assessors which evidence to accept or reject.
* Burden of proof – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion is insufficient.
|
28 May 2011 |
| April 2011 |
|
|
DNA is not conclusive alone, but when coupled with recovered items and the accused's lies, circumstantial conviction was upheld.
* Criminal law – murder – recovery of blood-stained clothing and cap from accused’s premises – DNA profiling linking items to deceased and accused.
* Evidence – expert evidence (DNA) – expert opinion not conclusive; need for random match statistics; caution against prosecutor’s fallacy.
* Criminal procedure – summing-up to assessors – omission of express reference to police statements not necessarily fatal if substance conveyed.
* Circumstantial evidence – accused’s lies and inconsistent explanations may corroborate prosecution case.
|
18 April 2011 |