|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2020 |
|
|
A defective certificate of delay under Rule 90(1) renders the appellant's appeal time-barred and liable to be struck out.
* Civil procedure — Limitation — Certificate of delay under Rule 90(1) — Mandatory contents: date of request, date of notification, total days to be excluded (Form L).
* Civil procedure — Registrar’s powers — only time for preparation/delivery of High Court copies may be excluded; periods covering proceedings before Court of Appeal cannot be excluded.
* Civil procedure — Effect of defective certificate of delay — renders appeal time-barred and incompetent; rectification possible in some cases but not where unaccounted periods remain.
|
17 December 2020 |
|
After expungement of a child complainant’s testimony, remaining hearsay and inconsistent medical evidence failed to prove statutory rape.
* Evidence Act s.127(2) — voir dire requirement for child/tender-age witnesses; failure to conduct voir dire leads to expungement of testimony. * Criminal law — statutory rape — essential elements: victim's age and penetration; pregnancy alone does not prove penetration or identity. * Hearsay evidence — statements by the complainant to a third party (guardian) inadmissible to prove commission or identity. * Documentary evidence (PF3) — proper admission requires reading/identification in court; failure renders it expunged. * Credibility — inconsistencies as to dates, places and witnesses can vitiate prosecution evidence and negate proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
17 December 2020 |
|
Proceedings conducted on an Information naming a deceased co-accused were void; conviction quashed and appellant released.
Criminal procedure — Abatement on death of accused (ss.224A, 284A CPA); Amendment of Information — endorsement and filing requirements (s.276(2),(3) CPA); Effect of prosecuting on an Information naming a deceased co-accused; Revisional powers — nullification of irregular proceedings and quashing conviction (s.4(2) AJA).
|
17 December 2020 |
|
Omission to cite the statutory provision creating rape rendered the charge fatally defective and convictions a nullity.
Criminal law — Charge and particulars — Requirement to cite the statutory provision creating the offence (sections 132, 135 CPA) — Gang rape under s.131A and substantive rape under s.130 — Allegation victim was an "idiot" without citing s.137 — Defective charge denies fair trial — s.388 CPA inapplicable — Proceedings and convictions nullity — Remedy under s.4(2) AJA.
|
17 December 2020 |
|
A cautioned statement recorded outside statutory time and material contradictions in evidence vitiated the conviction, prompting acquittal and release.
* Criminal procedure — admissibility of cautioned statements — compliance with section 50(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Act — recording within four hours or lawful extension; effect of non-compliance is expungement. * Evidence — proper procedure for admitting documentary evidence — document must be admitted before contents are read in court. * Evidence — contradictions between complainant’s testimony and medical report — material contradictions may destroy credibility and undermine prosecution case. * Sufficiency of evidence — conviction cannot stand where primary evidence is expunged and remaining evidence is unreliable.
|
17 December 2020 |
|
The applicant’s convictions quashed for incurably defective charges; plea not unequivocal and release ordered.
Criminal law – defective charge sheets – failure to cite correct statutory provision (285/286 v. 287A Penal Code); omissions of essential particulars (date, place, person threatened) – incurable defects; plea of guilty not unequivocal where charge defective; section 388 CPA limitation; nullity of proceedings; quashing convictions and setting accused at liberty; retrial discretion.
|
17 December 2020 |
| November 2020 |
|
|
Where lower court records are irretrievable and reconstruction impossible, the Court may quash convictions and order release.
* Criminal procedure – Missing court records and reconstruction – duty of courts to preserve records – reconstruction attempts may fail. * Remedies where records irretrievable – retrial (trial de novo) vs exercise of revisional powers. * Considerations for retrial: availability of witnesses/exhibits, seriousness/complexity of offence, and period already spent in custody. * Power to quash convictions and order release where reconstruction impossible and detention prolonged.
|
25 November 2020 |
|
Appellant’s conviction quashed and sentence set aside after trial records went missing and reconstruction proved impossible.
Criminal appeal — Missing trial court proceedings — Failed reconstruction — Appellate revisional power (s.4(2) AJA) — Quashment of first appeal and trial proceedings — Factors: appellant not at fault, materiality of missing record, possibility of reconstruction, custody length; prosecution defects (s.132 CPA, visual identification, delay, failure to call investigator) relevant to safety of conviction.
|
25 November 2020 |
|
Refusal to supply proceedings unjustified but not prejudicial; conviction on second count quashed for misapprehension of defence evidence.
* Corruption offences – PCCA s.15(1)(a) and (2) – soliciting and receiving advantage in relation to bail.
* Right to fair hearing – access to copies of proceedings before entering defence – refusal unjustified but must show prejudice.
* Criminal procedure – duty of trial court to consider and evaluate defence evidence; failure may vitiate conviction.
* Circumstantial evidence – chain must be unbroken; corroboration required where evidence is wholly circumstantial.
* Appellate interference – quashing conviction where there is misapprehension or non-evaluation of material defence evidence.
|
25 November 2020 |
|
Conviction quashed because identification was unsafe and prosecution failed to call material witnesses.
Criminal law – Rape – Visual identification: necessity to eliminate possibilities of mistaken identity (Waziri Amani test) – Identification at daylight not conclusive; description must be sufficiently detailed – Failure to call material witnesses who chased/arrested accused attracts adverse inference – Procedural non-compliance with s.210(3) CPA curable under s.388 CPA – s.231(1) CPA requirements and accused's right to be informed when making defence.
|
24 November 2020 |
|
A High Court judge may not close proceedings and order fresh committal while earlier committal and High Court proceedings subsist.
Criminal procedure – committal proceedings – material variance between committal record and DPP's information; legality of closing High Court proceedings; validity of ordering fresh committal while earlier committal and High Court proceedings subsist; nullity of sessions emanating from defective committal; revisional jurisdiction under section 4(3) AJA; requirement to comply with sections 245–247 CPA.
|
23 November 2020 |
|
Prosecution proved murder by medical, identification, confessional and physical evidence; five accused convicted and sentenced to death.
Criminal law – Murder – Elements: death, unlawful act, malice aforethought and causation; identification evidence; admissibility and weight of cautioned and extra‑judicial/confessional statements; corroborative physical exhibits; clerical error in charge not fatal where cured by evidence.
|
6 November 2020 |
| May 2020 |
|
|
Failure to consider the defence evidence is a fatal irregularity warranting quashing of conviction and release.
Criminal procedure — Duty to evaluate entire evidence — Non-consideration of defence evidence is a fatal irregularity — Right to be heard — Appellate duty to re-evaluate defence evidence — Conviction quashed.
|
14 May 2020 |
|
Conviction quashed because trial and first appellate courts failed to consider the appellant's defence evidence.
Criminal law – armed robbery; Criminal procedure – duty of trial court to evaluate entire evidence; Non‑consideration of defence evidence – fatal irregularity vitiating conviction; Right to fair hearing – accused’s right to be heard; First appellate court – duty to re‑evaluate defence evidence.
|
14 May 2020 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification was unsupported and a material witness was not called, attracting an adverse inference.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – identification not established where complainant did not know assailant and purported identifier (material witness) was not called; Prosecution duty to call material witnesses – adverse inference where prosecution fails to call witness; standard of proof – conviction unsafe if identification is undermined.
|
14 May 2020 |
|
Proceedings dividing assets were void where courts failed to determine presumption of marriage before granting consequential reliefs.
Family law; presumption of marriage under section 160(1)-(2) LMA; jurisdiction to divide matrimonial assets; necessity of decree of separation/divorce or proper statutory route before ordering asset division; appellate court should not decide new factual issues not determined at trial.
|
14 May 2020 |
|
Conviction properly sustained on an extra-judicial statement as admissible, voluntary, timely recorded, and not requiring independent corroboration.
Criminal law – admissibility of extra-judicial/confessional statements recorded before a Justice of the Peace; voluntariness and requirement to object at time of tender; no prescribed time limit for recording; corroboration of confession and cautionary warning; burden of proof.
|
13 May 2020 |
|
Interpreter’s reported‑speech recording breached s210 CPA, vitiating the conviction and quashing the sentence.
Criminal procedure — Recording of evidence — Section 210(1)(a) and (b) CPA — Evidence must be recorded in first‑person narrative — Evidence recorded as interpreter’s reported speech is not evidence and vitiates proceedings; effect on conviction and retrial; appellate enhancement where no admissible evidence.
|
12 May 2020 |
|
Court quashed conviction where witnesses’ evidence was recorded in reported speech of an interpreter, vitiating trial proceedings.
* Criminal procedure — recording of evidence — section 210(1) CPA — evidence must be recorded in first-person narrative — reported speech of interpreter is improper and may vitiate proceedings.* Evidence — where interpreter’s reported speech is recorded instead of witness’s first-person testimony there is no admissible evidence to ground conviction.* Appeal — conviction and sentence based on defective record — proceedings nullified and conviction quashed.* Retrial — left to the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
|
12 May 2020 |
|
Voir dire irregularity makes child testimony unsworn requiring corroboration; failure to evaluate defence made conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Evidence – Voir dire for child witnesses: failure to record questions renders testimony unsworn and requiring corroboration; corroboration necessary to sustain conviction. Criminal procedure – Duty of trial and appellate courts to properly consider and evaluate accused's defence; omission may render conviction unsafe.
|
12 May 2020 |
|
Failure to record child voire dire makes testimony unsworn requiring corroboration; convictions unsafe where defence was ignored.
Evidence — Child witnesses — Voire dire must show questions and answers; failure to record questions converts testimony to unsworn evidence requiring corroboration; corroboration must implicate accused. Criminal procedure — Duty of trial and appellate courts to evaluate and consider the accused’s defence; failure to do so may render conviction unsafe.
|
12 May 2020 |
|
Whether time to obtain trial copies is automatically excluded when computing the appellant's 45-day appeal period.
* Criminal Procedure Act, s.379(1)(b) – computation of 45-day appeal period – proviso excluding time to obtain copies of proceedings, judgment or order.* Exclusion of time under proviso is automatic; no application required.* s.379(2) – extension of time applies only where appellant is out of time after receipt of copies.* Proof of date of receipt of record relevant to computation of limitation period.
|
6 May 2020 |
|
Second appeal dismissed: new grounds barred and rape conviction upheld on corroborated evidence.
* Criminal law – second appeal – limits on raising grounds not argued in first appeal – jurisdictional bar under section 6(2) AJA.
* Evidence – sexual offences – victim’s testimony corroborated by family and medical evidence (PF3) and absence of cross‑examination.
* Appellate review – concurrent findings of fact – interference only where findings are perverse, clearly unreasonable or occasion miscarriage of justice.
|
5 May 2020 |
|
High Court was functus officio after refusing identical relief; subsequent extension order nullified and appeal struck out.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to appeal – functus officio – High Court’s inability to entertain identical subsequent application after final disposal by another judge; revisional jurisdiction s.4(2) AJA to nullify void proceedings; competence of appeal where conviction follows unequivocal plea of guilty (s.360(1) CPA).
|
5 May 2020 |