|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2017 |
|
|
Appellant's murder conviction quashed for failure to evaluate defence and unsafe, contradictory prosecution evidence.
Criminal law – conviction unsafe where trial judge fails to analyse defence evidence; cautioned statement inadmissible if timing inconsistent with offence; contradictions and inconsistencies in prosecution evidence render conviction unsafe; retrial not in interests of justice.
|
29 September 2017 |
|
Failure to record summing‑up and other procedural defects vitiated the trial; convictions quashed and appellants released.
Criminal procedure – trials before the High Court require assessors and recorded summing‑up notes; failure to record summing‑up vitiates proceedings. Procedure – post‑mortem and scene-sketch must be read/explained and accused informed of right to call maker (s.291(3) CPA). Evidence – extra‑judicial statements lacking essential particulars and improperly tendered are unreliable. Evidence – failure to call material eyewitnesses permits adverse inference. Retrial – not automatic where defects would allow prosecution to fill gaps; interests of justice may require quashing.
|
29 September 2017 |
|
Failure to serve the record of appeal within the prescribed period renders the appeal incompetent and it was struck out with costs.
Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 97(1) — service of record of appeal; Rule 86(1) — respondent to lodge address for appeal service; failure to serve within seven days renders appeal incompetent; Rule 10 — extension of time as remedy; Rule 2 not a remedy for lack of diligence.
|
29 September 2017 |
|
|
29 September 2017 |
|
Absence of assessors’ summing‑up record vitiates trial; conviction based on defective statements unsafe; appellant released.
Criminal procedure – High Court trials with assessors – mandatory duty to sum up to assessors and record the summing‑up or judge's notes; absence of summing‑up record renders proceedings nullity. Evidence – cautioned statements – requirement of compliance with section 50(1)(a) (four‑hour rule) and proper certification. Evidence – extrajudicial statements must sufficiently connect accused to offence. Retrial – discretionary; not ordered where conviction rests on defective or insufficient evidence and retrial would be unjust.
|
29 September 2017 |
|
|
29 September 2017 |
|
Court allowed amendment of a notice of appeal under Rule 111 to correct accidental errors without strict prerequisites.
* Civil procedure – Amendment of notice of appeal – Rule 111 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Court may allow amendment at any time – attachment of document to affidavit – no requirement to show good cause or attach the original judgment.
|
28 September 2017 |
|
Failure to record summing-up and other procedural defects vitiated conviction; appellants' convictions quashed and release ordered.
Criminal procedure – Trials before the High Court must be with the aid of assessors; failure to record or deliver summing-up notes nullifies proceedings; Admissibility of documentary evidence – post-mortem report and sketch map must be read, explained and accused informed of right to call maker (s.291/192 CPA); Extra-judicial statements – must be sufficiently specific and properly tendered by competent witness; Failure to call material eyewitnesses – evidence may be hearsay and adverse inference may be drawn; Retrial – ordered only when interests of justice require and not to allow prosecution to fill gaps.
|
28 September 2017 |
|
|
28 September 2017 |
|
Appeal struck out for non‑compliance with mandatory Rules 96(2) and 97(1); withdrawal refused; no order as to costs.
Civil procedure — Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 97(1): mandatory service of memorandum and record within seven days — noncompliance renders appeal incompetent; Rule 96(2): record of appeal must contain mandatory trial documents (application, pleadings) — omission makes record incomplete and appeal incompetent; withdrawal not permitted to pre-empt preliminary objection; costs — each party to bear own costs in estate matter.
|
28 September 2017 |
|
|
27 September 2017 |
|
An inordinate ten-year delay and inadequate reasons do not constitute good cause for extension to lodge a review.
Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 10 (extension of time); "Good cause" — Lyamuya principles (account for delay, not inordinate, diligence, point of law/illegality); requirement to account for each day of delay; inordinate delay (≈10 years) and absence of substantiation for claimed revision or pursuit of prison assistance; dismissal of application for extension.
|
25 September 2017 |
|
Defective notices of appeal and failure to record reasons for change of magistrate vitiated trial; retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – Notices of appeal – Rule 68(2) Court Rules – requirement to state order appealed against; Change of magistrate – section 214(1) Criminal Procedure Act – successor must record reasons – non‑compliance vitiates trial; Court of Appeal – revisional jurisdiction under Appellate Jurisdiction Act to correct incurable irregularities apparent on record; Remedy – quash proceedings and order retrial; High Court appeal from null proceedings void.
|
23 September 2017 |
|
A ten‑year unexplained delay and asserted ignorance of review rights do not constitute good cause for extension of time.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time – Rule 10 Court of Appeal Rules – Good cause required – Lyamuya principles (account for delay; no inordinate delay; diligence; other sufficient reasons) – Inordinate ten‑year delay – Ignorance of review right, lack of counsel or filing a revision held insufficient.
|
22 September 2017 |
|
Improper statutory citation and failure to specify the correct Penal Code subsection rendered the rape charge incurable, warranting quashing of conviction.
Criminal procedure – Framing of charges – improper citation of SOSPA instead of Penal Code section 130 for rape; failure to state applicable category under s.130(2) – incurable defect; curability under s.388 Criminal Procedure Act; revisional powers under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act; quashing conviction and setting aside sentence.
|
22 September 2017 |
|
|
20 September 2017 |
|
Rejection of an unlisted exhibit without hearing breached fair hearing; DPP’s interlocutory appeal allowed.
* Criminal procedure – preliminary hearing (s.192 CPA; Rules 4 & 6 GN No.192/1988) – exhibits need not be physically listed at preliminary hearing if materials are explained in summary of facts.
* Evidence – admissibility – trial court must invite submissions before rejecting an exhibit not listed at preliminary hearing; failure violates audi alteram partem.
* Constitutional law – right to fair hearing (Article 13(1) & 6(a)) – denial of opportunity to be heard is a fundamental irregularity.
* Appellate jurisdiction – DPP’s right to appeal interlocutory orders (s.6(2) AJA); prohibition on appeals by accused against interlocutory orders (s.5(2)(d) AJA).
|
19 September 2017 |
|
Omission of subsection 130(2)(a) in a rape charge vitiated the trial; conviction and sentence were quashed.
Criminal law – Rape – Particulars of charge – Requirement to specify which description under s.130(2)/(3) of Penal Code – Omission of s.130(2)(a) fatal; fair trial; revisional powers under s.4(2) AJA; retrial inappropriate where prosecution caused defect.
|
7 September 2017 |