|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| May 1996 |
|
|
Eyewitnesses, torn clothing and a confession established attempted rape; conviction and four‑year sentence confirmed.
Criminal law – Attempted rape – elements: overt acts surpassing preparation; eyewitness corroboration and torn clothing; cautioned statement/admission; intoxication and consensual relationship claims insufficient to negate attempt; sentence of four years affirmed.
|
31 May 1996 |
|
Appellate court upheld attempted rape conviction and affirmed a four-year sentence, finding actions went beyond mere preparation.
* Criminal law – Attempted rape – Distinction between preparatory acts and attempt – Actions going beyond preparation constitute attempt.
* Evidence – Corroboration by eyewitnesses, physical signs (torn underwear, exposed genitalia) and cautioned confession.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal against conviction and sentence – appellate review confirms trial findings where evidence is satisfactory.
* Sentence – Four-year imprisonment for attempted rape affirmed as not excessive.
|
31 May 1996 |
|
Advocate may sign an election petition for an absent authorised petitioner but verification must be personal; execution orders require leave to appeal.
Election law – pleading requirements – signature and verification: advocate may sign for absent authorised petitioner but verification must be by party or person personally acquainted with facts; procedural defects curable. Civil procedure – particulars and joinder in election petitions: lack of particulars ordinarily remedied by application for further particulars; vague or superfluous paragraphs may be struck out. Appellate jurisdiction – execution orders: orders from execution proceedings not listed in section 5(1)(b) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act fall under section 5(1)(c) and require leave to appeal.
|
30 May 1996 |
|
Respondent's failed insanity defence and concealment conduct supported substituting manslaughter conviction with murder and death sentence.
* Criminal law – Insanity and epilepsy – burden on accused to prove insanity on balance of probabilities; expert psychiatric evidence admissible and entitled to weight
* Criminal law – Intent and knowledge – conduct after the killing (cleaning weapon, hiding body, misleading searchers) demonstrates knowledge that the act was wrong and supports murder conviction
* Criminal law – Diminished responsibility – mental abnormality short of legal insanity does not constitute a defence reducing murder to manslaughter under existing law
* Appellate procedure – Court of Appeal can set aside manslaughter conviction and substitute a conviction and sentence for murder where trial judge erred
|
30 May 1996 |
|
The appellant's housebreaking conviction quashed for insufficient evidence; theft conviction upheld on possession of stolen property.
Criminal law – housebreaking and theft – proof beyond reasonable doubt – possession of stolen property – credibility of defence raised for first time at trial – circumstantial and vague evidence insufficient to establish housebreaking.
|
29 May 1996 |
|
Appeal allowed where trial court failed to analyse evidence and mens rea for possession of stolen property was not proved.
Criminal law – theft/possession of stolen property – evaluation of evidence and mens rea; duty of trial court to analyse conflicting accounts and give reasoned judgment; conviction unsafe where accused’s unchallenged explanation not considered.
|
29 May 1996 |
|
Appeal dismissed: conviction for armed robbery upheld based on eyewitness ID and possession of victim's stolen shirt.
Criminal law – armed robbery – in‑court identification versus identification parade – corroboration by possession of stolen property (victim's shirt) – credibility of eyewitnesses – rejection of fabricated alibi.
|
28 May 1996 |
|
In‑court identifications corroborated by possession of stolen property upheld armed robbery conviction and 30‑year sentence.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – identity evidence – in‑court identification reliability; corroboration by possession of recently stolen property; rejection of implausible alibi; sufficiency of evidence to convict under ss.285–286 Penal Code.
|
28 May 1996 |
|
In‑court eyewitness identification corroborated by recovered clothing was sufficient to uphold an armed robbery conviction and 30‑year sentence.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification evidence given in court and corroborated by recovered property – reliability and sufficiency to prove identity.* Criminal law – Alibi – assessment of credibility and probative value.* Evidence – Corroboration – physical exhibit (clothing) corroborating eyewitness testimony.
|
28 May 1996 |
|
Reported
Election Petitions - Locus standi in election petitions — Petitioner seeking to nullify election results in constituencies other than his
own - Whether petitioner has locus standi - Local Government (Elections) Act, 1979, Act No. 4 of 1979
Civil Practice and Procedure - Submissions to Court by the parties -Meaning and purpose of submissions - Written submissions contained in only five sentences — Whether constituting submissions |
28 May 1996 |
|
Applicant acquitted of store‑breaking but convicted of receiving stolen property due to contradictory account and possession.
Criminal law – store-breaking and theft – identification of stolen property – doctrine of recent possession – inconsistent explanations – substituted conviction for receiving stolen property (s.311(1) Penal Code) – sentence varied.
|
28 May 1996 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification was unsafe and mandatory s.231(1) procedure was not followed.
Criminal law – robbery with violence – identification evidence – identification at police station versus formal parade – risk of mistake and police suggestion; Criminal procedure – section 231(1) C.P. Act – mandatory requirement to decide whether there is a case to answer before informing accused of rights; Conviction unsafe – quashed; Sentence set aside.
|
27 May 1996 |
|
High Court refused revision of order setting aside an ex parte judgment, holding late applications did not oust lower court jurisdiction.
Civil procedure – Revision – Whether High Court should interfere where lower court allowed time‑barred applications and set aside ex parte judgment – Jurisdiction vs irregularity – Allowance of late application does not oust jurisdiction.
|
24 May 1996 |
|
Appeal dismissed: unlawful identity parade but eyewitness identification reliable, conviction and sentence upheld.
Criminal law — Robbery with violence — Identification parade — Non‑compliance with sections 53 and 54 Criminal Procedure Act — Single visual identification — Alibi procedure under section 194 CPA — Armed robbery; retrial discretion.
|
24 May 1996 |
|
Recent possession sustained robbery conviction; rape conviction unsupported; illegal 30-year sentence reduced to 15 years.
Criminal law – armed robbery – recent possession of stolen goods – identification by complainant – conviction sustained; Criminal law – rape – insufficient evidence to support conviction; Sentencing – unlawful excessive sentence premised on firearm use – substitution with lawful term.
|
24 May 1996 |
|
Appeal dismissed for failure to annex judgment and decree to the memorandum of appeal as required by Order 39 Rule 1 CPC.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Order 39 Rule 1(1) CPC 1915 – Requirement to annex copies of judgment and decree to memorandum of appeal – Non-compliance is fatal; appeal liable to be dismissed. Procedure – Service of multiple memoranda with differing dates – procedural irregularity.
|
24 May 1996 |
|
Perishable imported consignment released pending suit; agency alone does not bar joinder or relieve potential liability.
Civil procedure — Order 17 r.1(a) — interim release of goods — property in danger of being wasted or damaged — burden of proof by affidavit; Joinder — agent status does not automatically preclude liability or render party wrongly impleaded; Security for claims — court discretion whether to require cash deposit for claimed charges.
|
23 May 1996 |
|
A conviction based on an equivocal guilty plea and inadequate facts to prove dangerous driving is unsafe and quashed.
Criminal law – guilty plea – necessity for plea to be clear and unequivocal – admission of all elements of the offence; Criminal law – causing death by dangerous driving – insufficiency of prosecution facts to establish dangerous driving; Trial procedure – duty of magistrate to probe plea and ensure full admissions before convicting.
|
21 May 1996 |
|
Appeal allowed where employer’s refusal of service and non‑appearance warranted awarding full workmen’s compensation as claimed.
Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance – employer liability – Labour Officer’s expert calculation admissible and sufficient when unopposed – service refusal and non‑appearance – ex parte consequences – appellate intervention to restore full compensation.
|
21 May 1996 |
|
A conviction for being armed in public was quashed due to insufficient prosecution evidence and magistrate misdirection.
Criminal law – offence of being armed in public (s.81 Penal Code) – burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt – credibility and consistency of prosecution witnesses – misdirection by trial magistrate on burden of proof – insufficiency of evidence and quashing of conviction.
|
21 May 1996 |
|
|
21 May 1996 |
|
|
21 May 1996 |
|
Charge was materially defective; appellant discharged evidential burden; conviction and excessive sentence set aside; forfeiture order cancelled.
Criminal law – Possession of property suspected to be stolen – Defective charge where same property alleged to be in possession at different places/dates; evidential burden – satisfactory explanation by accused; misdirection in evaluating evidence; sentence – statutory maximum under s.312(1)(b) three years, unlawful to exceed; forfeiture order set aside upon acquittal; jurisdictional irregularity noted.
|
20 May 1996 |
|
Convictions for unlawful entry into a national park upheld; illegal excessive three-year sentences reduced and appellants released.
* National Park Ordinance (Cap 412) – s.21(1) – entering National Park without permit – elements and sufficiency of proof.
* Sentencing – legality – sentence exceeding statutory maximum – appellate reduction and release.
* Allegation of bribery by arresting officers – raised in defence but did not invalidate prosecution evidence.
|
20 May 1996 |
|
Appellant’s conviction for receiving stolen bicycles upheld; original sentence set aside and substituted with five-year statutory minimum.
* Criminal law – Receiving stolen property – Knowledge or reason to believe goods stolen – Identification by frame numbers.
* Evidence – Credibility findings – appellate restraint in overturning trial judge’s findings of fact.
* Criminal procedure – Treatment of a witness as hostile – correct procedure noted.
* Sentencing – Statutory minimum sentences triggered by value of stolen property – revisional substitution of sentence.
|
20 May 1996 |
|
Appellants’ cattle-theft convictions and statutory five-year sentences upheld on sufficient identification and credible witness evidence.
Criminal law – theft – Identification evidence and witness credibility – Absence of ill will or previous disputes; appellate review of sufficiency of evidence; confirmation of statutory sentence.
|
20 May 1996 |
|
Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed because intended grounds lack merit despite reasonable delay explanation.
Criminal procedure – application for leave to appeal out of time – delay explained by prison authority’s failure to notify – merits of intended appeal assessed; Criminal law – indecent assault – reliance on single witness and corroboration; Evidence – admissibility of child complainant’s testimony and judicial direction.
|
20 May 1996 |
|
Possession or custody of property left with a person does not alone prove theft where identity of the seller is doubtful.
Criminal law – Theft – Proof of identity and acts of conversion – Custody of property left with accused not alone sufficient to prove sale or theft where other possibilities exist; benefit of doubt required; civil remedy remains available.
|
17 May 1996 |
|
A court may not entertain an appeal against a valid consent order; review of its ruling was dismissed for want of an error apparent on the record.
* Civil Procedure – Review v Revision – distinction between review (same court) and revision (higher court).
* Consent orders – validity and finality – consent decrees (including instalment payment orders) are binding and not appealable except on serious grounds (fraud, collusion, misapprehension, public policy).
* Appealability – orders providing for payment by instalments are generally not appealable.
* Review grounds – review requires error apparent on face of record or established grounds present at date of decision.
|
16 May 1996 |
|
Consent orders (including instalment payment orders) are not appealable absent strict proof of fraud or other exceptional grounds.
* Civil procedure – consent orders – recording of settlement in court – consent orders not ordinarily appealable absent proof of fraud, collusion or misapprehension of material facts. * Civil procedure – payment by instalments – orders for instalment payments generally not appealable. * Civil procedure – review v revision – review is to the same court and limited to errors apparent on the face of the record or other narrow statutory grounds; revision lies to a higher court.
|
16 May 1996 |
|
Appeal struck out as time-barred; appellant failed to apply for extension under s.361 CPA.
Criminal procedure – Time limits for notice and petition of appeal – s.361 CPA – petition for delivery of judgment within 45 days – time to procure copy excluded from computation – proviso permitting extension for good cause requires application by appellant; notation 'rights of appeal explained' not conclusive proof of compliance with s.359 CPA.
|
15 May 1996 |
|
An out-of-time appeal without a formal application showing good cause under s.361 CPA is incompetent and struck out.
Criminal procedure — appeal out of time — s.361 Criminal Procedure Act — requirement to file within prescribed period (45 days) — court’s discretion under proviso to extend time for good cause — appellant must apply and show good cause — failure to apply renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
15 May 1996 |
|
Appellant's out-of-time appeal struck out for failure to comply with s.361 CPA and to show good cause for extension.
Criminal procedure – Appeals – s.361 Criminal Procedure Act – notice of appeal within 10 days and petition within 45 days (excluding time to procure copy of judgment) – strict compliance required – proviso permits extension only on good cause shown – failure to apply for extension or to show good cause renders appeal incompetent.
|
15 May 1996 |
|
|
14 May 1996 |
|
Court dissolved marriage finding irreparable breakdown and held courts cannot lawfully require payment to "buy off" a divorce.
Family law — Divorce — Breakdown of marriage — Requirement of irreparable breakdown (s.99) — Evidence of domestic violence and marital misconduct — Secret use of contraceptives and refusal to cohabit — Illegality of conditioning divorce on payment (no provision in Marriage Act).
|
13 May 1996 |
|
Conviction unsafe where identification was unreliable and identification parade breached established procedural safeguards.
Criminal law — Identification evidence — Requirements for watertight facial identification; identification parades — procedural safeguards and admissibility — Failure to follow parade rules renders identification unreliable.
|
13 May 1996 |
|
Appeal dismissed: confession voluntary, identification and possession corroborated, prosecution proved robbery beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – robbery with violence – identification evidence – reliability where arrest follows closely after daytime offence; confession – voluntariness and corroboration by events leading to arrest; possession of stolen property – inference of guilt; appellate review – deference to trial court credibility findings.
|
13 May 1996 |
|
Court admitted appeal despite failure to give timely notice, exercising discretion under proviso to section 361 CPA.
* Criminal procedure — s.361 CPA — notice of appeal within 10 days and petition within 45 days; effect of non-compliance. * Oral notice of appeal — legally permissible but must be recorded; role of s.359(1) CPA. * Discretion under proviso to s.361 CPA — admission of imperfect appeals for good cause.
|
13 May 1996 |
|
High Court upholds ex parte probate hearing where applicant failed to obey summons; revision dismissed with costs.
Probate proceedings – Ex parte hearing – Lawful to proceed where a party fails to obey summons; review application dismissed for failure to show sufficient cause; service and notice issues.
|
10 May 1996 |
|
A revisional court will not set aside a probate court’s ex parte hearing where the party fails to rebut service or show sufficient cause.
* Probate law – contested administration applications – multiple interested persons – ex parte hearing justified where party refuses service of summons; requirement of sufficient cause to set aside ex parte order.* Revision – scope – revisional court will not overturn trial magistrate's ex parte order absent satisfactory evidence challenging service or demonstrating sufficient cause.
|
10 May 1996 |
|
Appellant's challenges to assessors' consultation and locus to sue rejected; concurrent factual findings upheld; appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – second appeal – limited scope of review on concurrent factual findings; Public right of way – establishment by evidence and plan (Exh. A); Locus standi – right of user to sue to clear obstructed path; Magistrates’ Courts (Primary Courts) (Judgment of Court) Rules 1987 – Rule 3(1) on consultation with assessors.
|
10 May 1996 |
|
Appeal against ex parte judgment dismissed; one affidavit defective but respondents absolved of counsel’s omission and matter remitted for inter partes hearing.
Civil procedure – setting aside ex parte judgment – sufficiency and validity of supporting affidavits – effect of counsel’s negligence or illness – exercise of court’s power to call for additional affidavits – remit for inter partes hearing.
|
8 May 1996 |
|
Section 95 CPC permits a court to set aside its own judgment where procedural assignment irregularity caused prejudice and a miscarriage of justice.
Civil procedure — inherent/residual power — section 95 Civil Procedure Code, 1966 — court’s power to set aside its own judgment to prevent abuse or do justice; Assignment of cases — Order IV r.3 as amended by G.N. No.422/94 — mandatory compliance; Effect of hearing by judge not assigned — renders proceedings improper and may justify setting aside judgment if prejudicial.
|
8 May 1996 |
|
Court set aside ex parte judgment under s.95 CPC because an unassigned judge improperly tried the case.
* Civil Procedure – Assignment of cases – initial notice under G.N. No. 422/94 – mandatory compliance – hearing by unassigned judge renders proceedings improper.
* Civil Procedure – Inherent/residual powers – section 95 CPC – power to set aside/vacate judgments to do justice and prevent abuse of process.
* Ex parte proceedings – prejudice where a party had pending application to extend time to file defence – ground to set aside judgment.
|
8 May 1996 |
|
Alleged trial bias and procedural irregularities vitiated proceedings, warranting nullification and a retrial.
Land dispute; trial procedure — refusal to admit evidence; removal/detention of key witness before site visit; alleged judicial bias; unchallenged sworn complaints; miscarriage of justice; nullification of proceedings; retrial before a new panel.
|
7 May 1996 |
|
Appeal against assault convictions, sentence and compensation dismissed; victims' testimony and medical evidence upheld.
* Criminal law – Assault causing actual bodily harm – credibility of child/victim witnesses corroborated by medical report – appellate review of trial court's findings. * Criminal defences – defence of property – not available where force used was excessive and victims unarmed. * Sentence and compensation – fines with alternative imprisonment and modest compensation upheld as reasonable.
|
7 May 1996 |
|
Concurrent findings that the respondent was legitimized by kumkomboa were upheld; parties appointed joint administrators and appeal dismissed.
* Probate and administration – legitimacy – legitimization by payment (kumkomboa) – Rule 181B G.N. No. 279/1963 – payment within second year of child's life can legitimize child under customary practice.
* Succession – entitlement to inherit – concurrent factual findings of lower courts on paternity and legitimization upheld.
* Civil procedure – appointment of administrators on appeal – appellate court has power to appoint; court may appoint joint administrators where antagonism risks mismanagement.
* Relief – appellate court may direct primary court to administer estate if joint administrators disagree.
|
6 May 1996 |
|
Plaintiff proved title and right to recover land; alleged purchase by defendant was not proved, appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law – ownership and title – proof by documentary evidence and owner’s testimony – alleged sale not proved – usufructuary occupation – right to recover possession – appeal dismissed.
|
3 May 1996 |
|
Conviction for theft by servant quashed where evidence failed to exclude other persons and prosecution's case was doubtful.
Criminal law – stealing by servant – burden of proof; evidence must exclude reasonable alternative suspects; access to premises by employer/family undermines exclusive attribution to servant; biased auditing evidence and absence of State support render conviction unsafe.
|
3 May 1996 |
|
Appeal dismissed where appellant lacked authority to sue; a delegate cannot validly delegate the power to litigate.
Civil procedure – capacity to sue – locus standi – power of attorney – delegatus non potest delegare – delegate cannot delegate his authority – incompetence of suit for lack of authority – appeal incompetent under Order 40 Rule 1(v) CPC.
|
2 May 1996 |