|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 1976 |
|
|
Appellant’s convictions and concurrent three-year sentences for breaking and stealing upheld; wrong statutory citation not fatal.
Criminal law – burglary and theft – sufficiency of evidence to prove breaking into building with intent and stealing by a public servant Criminal procedure – defective charge – wrong statutory citation – whether error is fatal or curable on appeal Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act – effect where one offence is not scheduled; confirmation of sentence where appropriate
|
31 March 1976 |
|
Presumption of legitimacy applies where deceased recognised, maintained and educated the claimant; appellant failed to rebut it.
Family law – inheritance – presumption of legitimacy where mother was married to putative father – requires clear and conclusive evidence to rebut; recognition and maintenance by deceased as evidence of paternity.
|
30 March 1976 |
|
Appeal against assault conviction and sentence dismissed; no denial of defence witnesses and sentence not excessive.
Criminal law – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.241 Penal Code) – appellate review of trial court’s findings of fact – entitlement to call defence witnesses – address under s.206(1) Criminal Procedure Code – sentencing discretion and proportionality; interference only if excessive.
|
30 March 1976 |
|
Drunken reciprocal stick-fight lacked proof of malice aforethought, converting a murder charge into manslaughter with a five-year sentence.
Criminal law – Murder v. manslaughter – Whether malice aforethought proved in a fatal drunken stick-fight; eyewitness identification; absence of medical evidence on force; lack of motive; sentence.
|
27 March 1976 |
|
Identification and possession of stolen property corroborated conviction; appeal and sentence affirmed.
Criminal law — Identification evidence and corroboration — Possession/sale of stolen property as corroboration — Trial court’s rejection of defence — Appropriate charging (robbery v. stealing) and minimum sentence.
|
26 March 1976 |
|
Appeal concerning sufficiency of evidence and credibility in charges of stealing by servant/agent and obtaining credit by false pretence.
Criminal law – Stealing by servant/agent – Credibility of explanation of alleged burglary; Proof required from cashbook and inspection; Obtaining credit by false pretence; Appeal against conviction and sentence.
|
26 March 1976 |
|
Appellant’s fraudulent resale causing encroachment upheld; appeal dismissed and demolition of encroaching structure ordered.
Land law – Sale and resale of plot; fraudulent over-sale by vendor; encroachment on adjoining land established by sketch and sale description; appellate review – dismissal of appeal; remedy – demolition and removal of structure within fixed period.
|
22 March 1976 |
|
Reported
Evidence - Admissibility - Statement made to a police officer - Appellant told justice of the peace the statement he made to the police was enough-Justice of the Peace not shown the statement - Whether such statement can be incorporated in the statement made to justice of the peace - Whether admissible as a confession - Whether admissible -Whether it amounts to an admission or not.
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Charge - Duplex - Defence clear what the case against appellant was - Whether defect curable - S.346 of the Criminal Procedure Code
National Security - Espionage and Sabotage - National Security Act- Foreign agent - Whether the person (John Wilson) with whom appellant was communicating was a "foreign agent" - S.2(1) and s.12(1) of the National Security Act.
National Security - Espionage - Appellant alleged to have communicated with foreign agent - Whether necessary to prove which particular state or states the alleged agent was working for.
National Security - Espionage - When presumption under s.12(1) of the National Security Act comes into play - Effect of the presumption.
National Security - Spying on designated organization - Evidence of communication - No order of exact nature or type of information - Whether information for purposes prejudicial to the safety or interests of a designated organization.
National Security - Spying on a designated organization - Presumption under s.9(3) of the National Security Act - When it can come into play.
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentencing - Co-operation with police - Conviction based on presumption only - Extent of damage impossible to ascertain - Benefit to appellant. |
20 March 1976 |
|
Conviction for offering a bribe quashed where witness evidence was inconsistent and arrest/search powers were doubtful.
Criminal law – corrupt transaction (offering bribe) – evidentiary inconsistencies – credibility of prosecution witnesses – unlawful arrest/search – improbability of openly offering a bribe – appellate review of unsafe convictions.
|
19 March 1976 |
|
Convictions for housebreaking and stealing quashed for lack of evidence of criminal intent; both accused released forthwith.
Criminal law – housebreaking and stealing – sufficiency of evidence – mens rea – honest intention and reasonable doubt – revisionary powers to set aside unappealed conviction.
|
12 March 1976 |
|
Convictions for housebreaking and theft quashed because evidence failed to prove dishonest intent; immediate release ordered.
Criminal law – housebreaking and stealing – sufficiency of evidence to prove dishonest intention – reasonable doubt where entry explained as a visit or for repair. Criminal procedure – revisionary powers – court may set aside convictions and order release even where accused has not appealed.
|
12 March 1976 |
|
Appellant's conviction and mandatory minimum sentence for public-service theft upheld on evidence of knowing participation.
Criminal law – Theft by person employed in public service (ss. 270, 265 Penal Code) Evidence – Knowledge and participation; transportation of stolen goods; recovery and exhibits Liability – Principal offender status (s. 22 Penal Code) Procedure – Acquittal of co-accused does not automaticallly invalidate conviction of another; prosecution's failure to appeal Sentencing – Mandatory minimum under s. 5(d) Minimum Sentences Act where value exceeds Shs. 5,000
|
9 March 1976 |
|
Possession of stolen property and discovery of hidden proceeds established guilt; two-year sentence not excessive.
Criminal law – theft – identification of stolen property – recent possession and discovery of proceeds near accused's premises as circumstantial evidence establishing guilt. Evidence – sufficiency of documentary receipts and witness testimony as defence versus identification and possession. Sentencing – two-year imprisonment for theft not excessive given value stolen.
|
5 March 1976 |
|
Applicant failed to prove inheritance of two land parcels; appeal dismissed with costs.
Property law – inheritance dispute – burden of proof for bequest of specific land parcels; credibility and specificity of witness evidence; acquiescence by conduct undermining subsequent title claims; procedural irregularity (service/non-appearance) does not necessarily vitiate merits decision.
|
5 March 1976 |
|
Appellate court reduced statutory minimum fine for careless driving, holding trial court had discretion to impose a lesser sentence and should have heard mitigation.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Road Traffic Act s.63(2) – Whether court bound to impose statutory minimum – Discretion to impose lesser sentence where special reasons exist – Duty to draw statutory provision to accused’s attention and hear mitigation.
|
5 March 1976 |
|
Ex parte judgment set aside where hearing notice was not served and absence therefore constituted good cause.
Civil procedure – ex parte judgment – setting aside ex parte proceedings – improper service of hearing notice; absence due to notice not served constitutes good cause to vacate ex parte proof and judgment.
|
4 March 1976 |
|
The appellant's challenge to conviction and mandatory sentence for offering a bribe caught in flagrante was dismissed.
Criminal law – Corruption/bribery – Offence of corrupt transaction with an agent under s.3(2)(3)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Accused caught in flagrante delicto; appellate review of credibility findings. Sentencing – Mandatory minimum sentence under corruption legislation affirmed.
|
2 March 1976 |
|
Appeal allowed in part: independent eyewitnesses preferred, second appellant not linked to abusive language, first-count sentence reduced to run concurrently.
Criminal law – credibility of complainant versus independent witnesses – appellate preference where independent eyewitnesses contradict the complainant; Criminal law – common assault – pushing person into vehicle constituting common assault; Criminal law – abusive language – requirement of evidence linking particular accused to utterances; Sentencing – excessiveness of sentence; concurrent versus consecutive sentences for offences of the same transaction.
|
1 March 1976 |