|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 1995 |
|
|
Appeal allowed because five‑year lapse prevented reliance on recent possession; omnibus sentencing was improper.
Criminal law – identification and recent possession – whether possession of stolen property five years after theft amounts to recent possession; Criminal procedure – autrefois acquit/convict (s.137 CPA) raised by prosecution but appeal decided on insufficiency of possession evidence; Sentencing – impropriety of omnibus sentence where distinct counts require separate sentencing orders.
|
29 November 1995 |
|
Prosecution appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld due to unreliable identification, inconsistent evidence, and insufficient proof.
Criminal law – causing grievous harm – burden of proof – identification at night – reliability of witness evidence – medical report inconsistencies – inference of guilt from flight – appeal against acquittal.
|
28 November 1995 |
|
Possession of forged documents alone cannot establish forgery; conviction quashed for lack of mens rea.
Criminal law – Forgery and uttering – Presumption from possession of forged documents is rebuttable; handwriting expert evidence; necessity for reasons when disbelieving caution statements and defence; mens rea requirement for conviction.
|
28 November 1995 |
|
The Court reversed an extension of time to appeal, finding no new or sufficient grounds to justify the enlargement.
Civil procedure – extension of time to file Notice of Appeal – no sufficient/new reasons to justify extension where issues were previously determined; Rule 83 considered; subsequent unrelated application irrelevant.
|
28 November 1995 |
|
|
28 November 1995 |
|
Appellant's convictions for fraudulent false accounting and theft upheld; confessions and documentary discrepancies sufficiently corroborated.
Criminal law – Fraudulent false accounting and theft by public servant – Documentary discrepancies (cash receipts v. bin/cardex cards) as proof; Admissibility and corroboration of cautioned statements (confessions) – Retraction at trial does not necessarily negate admissibility; Compensation for value of stolen goods – appellate direction where trial court omitted reasons.
|
28 November 1995 |
|
Appeal dismissed; convictions for stealing and fraudulent false accounting upheld and mandatory restitution ordered.
Criminal law – stealing by public servant and fraudulent false accounting – reliance on cash sale receipts, bin cards and cardex records – corroboration of retracted confessions by documentary and audit evidence – mandatory compensation order for value of stolen public goods.
|
28 November 1995 |
|
Convictions for theft and false accounting upheld; court orders mandatory restitution for the audited value of stolen goods.
Criminal law – theft and fraudulent false accounting by employees – discrepancies between cash sales and stock records as evidence of misappropriation. Admissibility – cautioned/confessional statements – voluntariness and corroboration by documentary and audit evidence. Remedies – mandatory restitution/compensation for value of stolen goods where theft by employee is established. Appeal – appellate review of factual findings and credibility where trial court and documentary evidence are consistent.
|
28 November 1995 |
|
Appeal dismissed; convictions for fraudulent false accounting and stealing upheld and compensation ordered for value of stolen goods.
Criminal law – Fraudulent false accounting (s.317(b) Penal Code) and stealing by a public servant (s.271) – manipulation of cash sale receipts, bin cards and cardex cards to conceal theft. Admissibility of cautioned statements – voluntariness and corroboration by documentary evidence. Evidence – documentary and audit evidence can corroborate confessions and support conviction. Remedy – appellate correction of trial court’s omission in ordering compensation for value of stolen goods.
|
28 November 1995 |
|
A magistrate’s civil pecuniary jurisdiction derives from the instrument of appointment; lack of such jurisdiction voids the proceedings.
Magistrates’ jurisdiction – Pecuniary limits – Resident magistrates vs. other district magistrates – Instrument of appointment (Government Notice No.495/1990) determines civil pecuniary jurisdiction – Lack of jurisdiction renders proceedings null and void – Jurisdictional defects may be raised at any time.
|
28 November 1995 |
|
Failure to provide an address for service does not automatically deprive a respondent of locus standi; the issue is for a three-judge panel.
Court procedure — requirement for respondents to supply an address for service — effect of non-compliance on locus standi — interpretation of Mvita Construction Co. Ltd. — appropriateness of full bench versus ordinary panel to decide locus standi issue.
|
27 November 1995 |
|
Court declined committal and ordered larger monthly instalments, finding no proof of absconding or concealed assets.
Committal under Order 21 – discretion to commit a judgment debtor; Order 21 Rule 29(1) – inability by poverty or other sufficient cause as defence to committal; Order 21 Rule 39(2) – matters (absconding, concealed assets, undue preference) must be proved before detention; Instalments may be ordered as alternative to committal; burden of proof on party alleging risk of absconding or concealed assets.
|
25 November 1995 |
|
|
24 November 1995 |
|
An absentee claimant’s land claim is barred after long absence and development by village-allotted occupants; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law – resettlement/allocation by village authority – adverse possession/long possession and development – limitation/redemption period (12 years) – absentee claimant disentitled to dispossess occupants.
|
22 November 1995 |
|
Appeal allowed: no proof of wilful malicious damage; crop destruction by cattle is civil trespass, not proven criminal offence.
Criminal law – Malicious damage to property – Requirement of wilful and unlawful destruction; Evidence insufficient where damage likely caused by negligent or accidental cattle trespass by juveniles – Civil remedy (tort/trespass) instead of criminal sanction.
|
22 November 1995 |
|
Unreliable eyewitness identification merits acquittal, while recent possession of stolen goods can validly sustain conviction.
Criminal law – Evidence – Identification: unsatisfactory eyewitness identification lacking descriptive particulars and made after victim was incapacitated may be unsafe to sustain conviction. Criminal law – Property offences: doctrine of recent possession supports conviction where accused is found with stolen goods shortly after theft and behavior (flight) negates innocent explanation.
|
22 November 1995 |
|
Unreliable identification warrants acquittal, while recent possession and flight can sustain a robbery conviction.
Robbery with violence; identity evidence—reliability of identification after victim rendered unconscious; recent possession doctrine—possession shortly after theft and flight as evidence of guilt; benefit of doubt where identification not watertight; appellate interference with findings of fact.
|
22 November 1995 |
|
Convictions based on inadmissible depositions and unsafe identification were quashed; appellants to be released if not lawfully detained.
Criminal law – unlawful possession of government trophy (elephant tusks) – identification evidence – requirement to exclude all reasonable possibility of mistaken identity. Evidence – hearsay/extrajudicial depositions – admissibility under section 34B Evidence Act – failure to call witnesses. Trial irregularity – failure to call key witnesses and reliance on inadmissible depositions renders conviction unsafe.
|
22 November 1995 |
|
Reported
Company law - Winding up - When just and equitable that company be wound up - Directors not on speaking terms — Sections 163, 167, 172 and 173 of Cap 212 |
21 November 1995 |
|
Appellate court reduced an excessive five-year theft sentence where the victim was a private employer and no loss occurred.
Criminal law — Sentencing — Mandatory/equivalent minimum sentences — Whether a private employer is a "specified authority" for statutory minimum sentences; sentencing discretion and appellate interference where sentence is excessive; relief by reduction and discharge for time served; revision proceedings for co-accused.
|
21 November 1995 |
|
Company affairs deadlocked and mismanaged; court ordered winding up and appointed Registrar of Companies as official receiver.
Company law – Winding up – Sections 163, 167(d), 172 and 173 – deadlock between directors – just and equitable grounds – exclusion of director, removal of assets – appointment of Registrar/official receiver.
|
21 November 1995 |
|
Reported
The court wound up the company where irreconcilable disputes between the applicant and respondent made continuation impossible.
Company law – Winding up jurisdiction (s 163 Cap 212); just and equitable ground (s 167(f)) as basis for winding up. Company law – Disputed directorship/membership and conflicting Registrar entries; limited role for s 167(d) where facts are unclear. Private company – inability to carry on business due to irreconcilable director disputes and alleged misappropriation. Appointment of Registrar of Companies as official receiver under s 179 Cap 212.
|
21 November 1995 |
|
Redemption of clan land restores it to clan ownership; the redeemer holds it in trust and cannot dispose of it absolutely.
Customary/clan land — Redemption of clan land — Status of redeemed land — Redeemer holds in trust for clan members, not absolute owner. Heir's entitlement — Disputed clan land as part of deceased's inseparable estate pending probate and administration. Equitable relief — Restraint on disposal where respondent shown wasteful of clan land.
|
21 November 1995 |
|
Identification at a daylight parade and related evidence upheld conviction for armed robbery; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification parade – Safety and reliability of eyewitness identification in daylight at dawn. Criminal law – Credibility assessment – Trial court’s advantage on witness demeanour and appellate restraint in overturning credibility findings. Criminal law – Alibi – Inconsistencies and lack of corroboration weaken alibi defence. Criminal law – Conduct after offence – Attempted escape as incriminatory evidence.
|
21 November 1995 |
|
Applicant failed to show predecessor magistrate was prevented from concluding the trial; leave to appeal refused.
Appellate procedure; leave to appeal — refusal where applicant fails to establish grounds. Succession of magistrates — s.10(1) requires prevention (death, transfer or other cause) of predecessor from concluding trial; reassignment or seniority alone insufficient. Requirement of reasons on the record for successor magistrate to conclude trial.
|
21 November 1995 |
|
Child complainant's credible evidence and corroborative medical opinion upheld conviction despite delay in examination.
Criminal law – Sexual offences against children – Credibility of child witness; medical evidence corroboration despite inability to specify date; delay between offence and examination; immateriality of minor contradictions; adult's duty of care to vulnerable child.
|
20 November 1995 |
|
Appeal allowed: trial irregularity and erroneous limitation and possession findings led to quashing and remittal for rehearing.
Civil procedure – trial irregularity – failure to sit with required assessors – proceedings vitiated and quashable. Limitation – computation of time – appellate court’s incorrect computation may render a dismissal as time‑barred unsafe. Land law – title/possession – alleged gift by ancestor and adverse possession – disputed factual findings require fresh determination. Appeal – appellate court may set aside and remit for rehearing where procedural and substantive errors affect outcome.
|
20 November 1995 |
|
Appeal over land title: whether long possession equates to permanent gift and how prior proceedings affect limitation and administrator’s authority.
Land law – possession and prescription – whether long, undisturbed possession establishes permanent gift or title; Limitation – effect of prior related proceedings on computation of limitation; Civil procedure – authority of estate administrator to institute proceedings and proof of such authority.
|
20 November 1995 |
|
Application to set aside dismissal for non-appearance refused for lack of diligence; leave to appeal granted.
Civil procedure – application to set aside dismissal for want of prosecution – adequacy of explanation for non-appearance and counsel’s diligence; merits review of alleged failure to consider revocation – where defendant failed to call witnesses and magistrate addressed issue – no triable issue; leave to appeal granted.
|
20 November 1995 |
|
An application to restore an appeal dismissed for non-appearance was refused for lack of diligence, but leave to appeal was granted.
Civil procedure — application to set aside dismissal for non-appearance — diligence of counsel — repeated failure to appear — requirement to notify court of delay; Appeal — whether triable issue (revocation) exists — appellate review of trial record; Relief — application disallowed with costs; leave to appeal granted under s.5(1).
|
20 November 1995 |
|
Application to set aside dismissal for want of prosecution refused for lack of diligence, but leave to appeal granted.
Civil procedure – application to set aside dismissal for want of prosecution – diligence of counsel and party – failure to appear – adequacy of notice to court; Review of trial record on alleged omission (revocation) – leave to appeal to Court of Appeal (s.5(1)).
|
20 November 1995 |
|
An appellate court should not reverse an acquittal or convict where disturbance of trial credibility findings and single-witness identification are not reasonably supported by the record.
Criminal law – Appeal against acquittal – appellate court's interference with trial court's credibility findings – conviction on single witness identification – requirement of positive satisfaction before basing conviction on single witness.
|
20 November 1995 |
|
Repayment of a shortage does not preclude theft; an accomplice’s conviction requires proof of common intention.
Criminal law – theft and obtaining by false pretences – repayment of taken funds does not automatically negate theft; evidence of common intention required to convict alleged accomplice of conspiracy and related offences; prosecutorial practice – avoid unduly large number of counts.
|
20 November 1995 |
|
Recent possession alone cannot sustain conviction where a reasonable, uncontradicted innocent explanation exists.
Criminal law – theft/possession of stolen property – doctrine of recent possession – application as part of circumstantial evidence rules – inculpatory facts must be incompatible with innocence. Circumstantial evidence – reasonable hypothesis of innocence – uncontradicted explanation by accused may defeat inference of guilt. Revisionary powers – quashing convictions where evidence insufficient.
|
17 November 1995 |
|
An application for prerogative relief was dismissed as time‑barred and the court refused an extension of time.
Administrative law – Judicial review – statutory six‑month limitation for prerogative proceedings – application filed out of time; extension of time refused – preliminary objection upheld.
|
16 November 1995 |
|
The applicant's public‑law application was dismissed as time‑barred under section 18(3); respondents' objections upheld.
Administrative law — preliminary objections — limitation period under section 18(3), Act No.55 of 1968 — six‑month bar; delay/excuse for late filing; competence of prerogative orders against private individuals.
|
16 November 1995 |
|
An out-of-time application was dismissed for failure to establish sufficient cause to extend the statutory filing period.
Civil procedure – preliminary objection – time bar – application filed outside statutory period – failure to show sufficient cause for extension/condonation – authorities relied upon held inapplicable.
|
16 November 1995 |
|
Single eyewitness identification by a familiar victim under good lighting and during a struggle upheld conviction.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Single eyewitness identification – Reliability assessed by familiarity, illumination and opportunity (struggle) – Alibi failing when dates inconsistent – Conviction for robbery with violence upheld.
|
16 November 1995 |
|
Reported
A stay pending appeal requires a filed appeal; notice of appeal alone does not suffice.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution pending appeal – Appeal must be filed (be in being) before a court can entertain an application for stay under Order 39 Rule 5 CPC; notice of appeal insufficient.
|
15 November 1995 |
|
An application for stay pending appeal is premature and must be dismissed if no appeal has been filed when the application is made.
Civil Procedure – Stay of execution pending appeal – Order XXXIX Rule 5 CPR – Appeal must be filed before stay application – Notice of appeal insufficient – Application premature and dismissible.
|
15 November 1995 |
|
Reported
Civil Practice and Procedure - Appeals - Stay of execution pending appeal- Court cannot entertain application where no appeal filed -Order XXXIX Rule 5 |
15 November 1995 |
|
Reported
Application to restrain election results dismissed: affidavit defective and constitutionally limited jurisdiction under article 41(7).
Election law — interim injunctions — requirement to show serious question to be tried and probability of success — equitable relief sparingly granted; Civil procedure — Order 19, Rule 3 — affidavits must be based on personal knowledge or, if on information, disclose sources/grounds; Constitutional law — article 41(7) ousts courts’ jurisdiction to inquire into presidential election once National Electoral Commission declares a winner; Advocate’s affidavit — non-compliance with affidavit rules renders it inadmissible.
|
13 November 1995 |
|
Court dismissed injunctions to halt election declarations, finding the supporting affidavit defective and constitutional limits on jurisdiction.
Constitutional and electoral law – Article 41(7) – ouster of High Court jurisdiction to inquire into Presidential election once National Electoral Commission declares results. Civil procedure – affidavits – Order XIX, rule 3 – requirement to disclose sources of information and grounds for belief. Interim relief – interlocutory injunction – necessity of prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience. Election law – public interest in completion of electoral process.
|
13 November 1995 |
|
Application to restrain election results dismissed: affidavit defective and Article 41(7) ousts court jurisdiction; dismissed with costs.
Electoral law – interlocutory injunction to restrain declaration/conduct of elections; Civil Procedure – affidavit requirements (Order XIX r.3) and disclosure of information sources; Constitutional law – Article 41(7) ousting judicial jurisdiction over Presidential election after declaration; Injunction principles – serious question to be tried, probability of success, balance of convenience; Admissibility of affidavits sworn by advocates.
|
13 November 1995 |
|
Reported
Elections - Election petition - Supporting affidavit - Facts asserted not in personal knowledge of deponent - Affidavit not conforming to provisions of Order XIX rule 3(1) of Civil Procedure Code
Elections - Election petition - Jurisdiction of High Court to enquire into election of President - Jurisdiction ousted by article 41(7) of Constitution |
13 November 1995 |
|
The court dismissed an application to restrain electoral acts, finding affidavits defective and Article 41(7) ousting jurisdiction to review Presidential election results.
Civil procedure – interlocutory injunction – extraordinary nature of injunctions; burden to show serious question to be tried and probability of success. Evidence – affidavits – Order XIX r.3 CPC requires personal knowledge or disclosure of sources/grounds for belief; affidavits based on information from others incurably defective. Constitutional law – Article 41(7) Constitution bars courts from inquiring into Presidential election once electoral commission declares result. Practice – advocates’ affidavits must comply with procedural rules; court will not be intimidated by threats.
|
13 November 1995 |
|
Appeal partly allowed: forgery-related convictions quashed for insufficient evidence; theft conviction and sentence affirmed.
Criminal appeal – sufficiency of evidence – forgery, uttering and false accounting – whether prosecution proved forgery and false accounting beyond reasonable doubt; theft/disposition by servant – proof of unauthorised withdrawal and failure to account; appellate intervention quashing convictions where evidence is insufficient; sentencing discretion and need to consider each offence’s gravity.
|
13 November 1995 |
|
Appeal allowed on forgery, uttering and false accounting counts for insufficient evidence; theft conviction upheld, sentence criticised but maintained.
Criminal law – sufficiency of evidence – forgery, uttering and false accounting – proof beyond reasonable doubt; Theft – circumstantial and direct evidence of withdrawal and disappearance of cash; Appeal – Crown support of convictions and appellate review of unsafe convictions; Sentencing – discretionary exercise requiring supporting material.
|
13 November 1995 |
|
Husband lacked locus to challenge tenancy entered into by his wife; tribunals misdirected by failing to consider appellant’s offer to pay reduced rent.
Housing law – tenant status and locus standi – where original tenancy was in wife’s name husband lacked locus; Tribunal procedure – inadequately recorded proceedings and reliance thereon may amount to misdirection; rent disputes – Tribunal’s failure to consider tender to pay reduced rent is material; standard rent assessment – tribunal may be advised to order assessment before rent increase; repairs – failure to address landlord’s duty to repair may affect outcomes but requires record support.
|
10 November 1995 |
|
Appellant’s challenge to District Court’s finding on land ownership dismissed; respondent proven lawful owner; appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil appeal – land dispute – assessment of witness credibility – appellate court’s power to reassess evidence afresh – lease evidence and limitation – determination of lawful ownership on balance of probabilities.
|
10 November 1995 |