|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| August 1996 |
|
|
An appellate court will not entertain a new ownership/locus-standi issue absent determination below; such disputes require a separate suit.
* Civil procedure – Appeal – raising new issues at appellate stage – appellate court will not entertain new ownership or locus-standi questions not determined below; such matters require a separate suit and fresh evidence. * Housing law – rent assessment – ownership disputes do not displace tenants’ obligation to pay rent absent proper determination by appropriate parties.
|
30 August 1996 |
|
Whether treating and procedural irregularities at nomination and polling vitiated the election result.
Election law – petition to set aside election – corrupt practices (treating, provision of food/drink, transport, celebrations) – undue influence – procedural irregularities at nomination and polling – forged/suspicious return forms – chain of custody defects – standard of proof in election petitions – relief of nullifying election and ordering fresh poll.
|
30 August 1996 |
|
Appellant who consented to administrator's appointment cannot remove alleged estate property and must seek Primary Court determination.
Administration of deceased's estate – appointment by consent – exhibited list of estate property – failure to dispute list at Primary Court – removal of alleged estate property by surviving spouse – G.N. 2 of 1988 procedural non‑compliance – no miscarriage of justice – remedy: Primary Court determination.
|
30 August 1996 |
|
|
29 August 1996 |
|
Lower appellate court erred by deciding a civil land dispute based on findings from an unrelated criminal case.
Appeal — appellate misdirection by relying on unrelated criminal proceedings in deciding a civil appeal; land dispute — restoration vs monetary compensation; wrongful sale and right to recover against prior fraudulent seller.
|
29 August 1996 |
|
Material contradictions in prosecution witnesses' accounts rendered the convictions unsafe; appeal allowed and convictions quashed.
* Criminal law – Appeal – appellate review of witness credibility – convictions unsafe where material contradictions exist between key prosecution witnesses; * Criminal procedure – failure to call expected police witness noted but not dispositive where contradictions render conviction unsafe.
|
28 August 1996 |
|
Burglary conviction unsafe without proof of breaking; substituted to simple theft and sentence reduced.
Criminal law – Burglary – essential element of 'breaking' must be proved (closed aperture then broken) – mere entry insufficient; Identification evidence – close-range identification and threats; Substitution of conviction to simple theft; Sentence reduction.
|
28 August 1996 |
|
Appellate court upheld arson conviction, rejected alibi for material inconsistencies, and ordered compensation to the victim.
* Criminal law – Arson – sufficiency of evidence – credibility of alibi and eyewitness identification.
* Evidence – assessment of contradictions in alibi testimony (dates, tickets) and inferences from conduct (flight).
* Sentencing – appellate review; sentence of five years upheld as not excessive.
* Compensation – court may order compensation for property destroyed by crime where trial court failed to do so.
|
27 August 1996 |
|
Alibi inconsistencies and eyewitness testimony justified upholding the appellant's arson conviction and awarding compensation to the victim.
* Criminal law – Arson – Credibility of alibi evidence – Material discrepancies and corroborating facts may justify rejection of an alibi.
* Evidence – Eyewitness identification and flight – Observations of presence at scene and running away support guilty inference.
* Sentencing – Five-year sentence for arson upheld as not excessive.
* Remedies – Victim compensation for destroyed property may be ordered on conviction.
|
27 August 1996 |
|
Appellate court quashed theft conviction based on confession where accounting showed no loss.
Criminal law – theft by servant – conviction based mainly on confession – accounting evidence showing no loss – confession possibly induced by mistake – conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
|
27 August 1996 |
|
Appellant’s conflicting explanations were held to be lies evidencing guilt; conviction and sentence affirmed, appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Theft – Presence with stolen property – Inconsistent explanations by accused treated as ‘‘desperate lies’’ indicating guilty mind; witness credibility and trial court’s findings upheld on appeal.
|
27 August 1996 |
|
Confessions, reliable identifications and possession of stolen property sustain armed robbery convictions; corporal punishment reduced.
Criminal law – admissibility of cautioned/confessional statements; claims of torture; identification parades and eyewitness identification; corroboration by possession of stolen property; conspiracy and armed robbery; sentencing and corporal punishment.
|
27 August 1996 |
|
Convictions for armed robbery upheld; corporal punishment reduced to six strokes while imprisonment sentences stand.
Criminal law – armed robbery and conspiracy – admissibility and corroboration of cautioned/confessional statements – identification parades and reliability of victim identifications – recovery of stolen property as corroboration – unproven torture allegations – right to counsel – sentencing: reduction of corporal punishment.
|
27 August 1996 |
|
Confessions, reliable identifications, and recovered property upheld convictions; corporal punishment reduced from 24 to 6 strokes.
Criminal law – admissibility of cautioned confessions – allegations of torture; Identification parades – fairness and reliability of visual identification; Corroboration by recovery of stolen property; Right to legal representation – waiver and adjournments; Sentence – appropriateness of long imprisonment and reduction of corporal punishment.
|
27 August 1996 |
|
Appellant failed to prove shs 5,000 bought cattle; court finds money used for house building and dismisses appeal with costs.
Cattle bailment – proof of purchase and ownership – need for credible evidence and identifying marks of livestock – conflicting evidence on use of money (purchase of cattle vs building houses) – appellate review of findings on credibility and sufficiency of evidence.
|
27 August 1996 |
|
Reported
Civil Practice and Procedure - Legal Representation - Attorney General and law officers there under - Whether state attorneys may appear in court to represent a parastatal corporation that is not a government department - Legal Practitioners Decree and rr. 4 and 2 of the Legal Practitioners Rules (Z)
|
26 August 1996 |
|
Reported
Employment law - Conciliation Board - Application for leave to apply for order of certiorari to quash decision of and for extension of time in order to do so and for stay of decision of Board - Delay not deliberate nor negligent - Prima facie case made out - In interests of industrial relations that order be made - Order granted |
26 August 1996 |
|
Reported
Court extended time, granted leave to apply for certiorari, and stayed execution to prevent irreparable workplace harm.
Administrative law – Extension of time to seek leave to apply for certiorari – Delay excused where applicant attempted to exhaust remedies – Leave to apply for certiorari requires prima facie case – Stay of execution granted to prevent irreparable harm to industrial relations and preserve status quo.
|
26 August 1996 |
|
A conditional gift created only a revocable licence; licence termination defeated the appellant’s title claim and appeal was dismissed.
Civil procedure — Primary Court territorial jurisdiction over neighbouring districts; Res judicata — inapplicable where prior judgment involved different parties; Property — conditional gift vs absolute transfer; conditional gift creates a revocable licence, not title; Prescription/adverse possession inapplicable against a licence; Procedural irregularity (locus visit) not fatal absent miscarriage of justice.
|
26 August 1996 |
|
Applicant proved adultery by credible eyewitness evidence; trial court's award of ten cows (or value) restored, District Court reversed.
Adultery – proof by eyewitnesses; assessment of credibility of direct evidence; appellate review of factual findings; restoration of trial court judgment.
|
23 August 1996 |
|
Trial magistrate misused discretion in refusing prosecution adjournment; acquittal quashed and trial reinstated.
Criminal procedure — Adjournments — Judicial discretion — Whether refusal to grant adjournment when delays arose from the court’s absence and accused’s illness was a misexercise of discretion — Acquittal quashed and trial remitted.
|
23 August 1996 |
|
Reported
Landlord and tenant - Regional Housing Tribunal- Proceedings of -Participation of laymembers - Opinion to be sought before chairman prepares judgment - Section 11(4) of Rent Restriction Act 1984 |
23 August 1996 |
|
Trail evidence, the accused’s conduct and recovery of stolen goods upheld conviction and five-year sentence.
Criminal law – storebreaking and stealing – circumstantial evidence – trail of stolen goods leading to accused’s premises – accused’s conduct (attempted escape and leading to discovery) as corroborative evidence – credibility and safety of conviction – appeal dismissed.
|
23 August 1996 |
|
Insufficient proof that a caretaker stole property; loss suggested negligence and better addressed civilly.
Criminal law – Stealing by agent – Sufficiency of evidence to prove theft – Proof of date and identity of perpetrator – Multiple workers and supervisory negligence – Civil remedy vs criminal prosecution.
|
23 August 1996 |
|
Appeal rejected for failure to attach the decree as required by Order 39 r.1(i); court cannot waive the defect.
Civil procedure — Appeal competency — mandatory requirement to attach copy of decree to memorandum of appeal — Order 39 r.1(i) Civil Procedure Code — no discretion to waive non-compliance — appeal rejected with costs.
|
23 August 1996 |
|
Reported
Failure to seek and record the opinion of a participating lay-member under s11(4) voids tribunal proceedings.
Rent Restriction Act s 11(3) & (4) – requirement to seek and record lay-members’ opinion – presence during determining evidence – procedural irregularity vitiating tribunal proceedings – retrial ordered.
|
23 August 1996 |
|
Failure to seek and record a lay member’s opinion where they participated in key hearings voids the tribunal’s judgment and mandates retrial.
* Rent Restriction Act 1984 – s.11(3) and s.11(4) – interplay between continuation of proceedings and mandatory requirement to seek and record lay members’ opinions.
* Administrative law – composition of tribunal – role and presence of lay members – effect of failing to record their opinion.
* Procedural irregularity – failure to comply with statutory requirement renders tribunal proceedings null and void; retrial ordered.
|
23 August 1996 |
|
Court certified whether appellate misapprehension of evidence and adverse possession affected the land ownership decision.
Appellate review — misapprehension of evidence — failure to evaluate contradictions — certification of questions to Court of Appeal — adverse possession — capacity to alienate land not adjudicated.
|
20 August 1996 |
|
Failure to conduct a voir dire does not automatically invalidate child testimony when medical and circumstantial corroboration exist.
* Evidence — Child witness — failure to conduct voir dire under s.127 Evidence Act reduces weight but does not automatically invalidate testimony.
* Corroboration — medical report (PF3) showing defilement and gonorrhea can corroborate tender child’s evidence.
* Confession and contemporaneous sequence of events — relevant to establish identity of perpetrator.
* Criminal appeal — conviction and minimum sentence for defilement upheld where totality of evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
20 August 1996 |
|
Absence of a voir dire does not automatically invalidate a tender child's testimony; medical and circumstantial corroboration may sustain conviction.
Evidence — Evidence Act s.127 — voir dire — tender child testimony — non‑compliance with voir dire reduces testimony to tender‑child status requiring corroboration; medical PF3s (gonorrhoea) and circumstantial/res gestae facts may supply corroboration — conviction for defilement sustained. Criminal law — defilement — sufficiency of corroboration — sentence lawfully minimum prescribed.
|
20 August 1996 |
|
Appeal dismissed: conviction for cattle theft affirmed based on recent possession and credible eyewitness evidence.
* Criminal law – cattle theft – proof by recent possession – recovery after 14 days and over 150 miles supports inference of guilt; credibility of eyewitness and undercover recovery operation upheld.
|
20 August 1996 |
|
Recent possession of stolen cattle traced far from theft location upheld conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Criminal law – cattle theft – recent possession doctrine – possession 14 days after theft and 150 miles from theft scene held sufficiently recent; eyewitness and trap operation evidence establishing possession and intent to sell; escape attempt as corroboration of guilt.
|
20 August 1996 |
|
A primary court had jurisdiction to hear a defamation claim because such wrongs are redressable under customary or Islamic law.
Defamation — jurisdiction of primary/trial court — availability of remedies under customary or Islamic law — appellate review of jurisdictional rulings.
|
19 August 1996 |
|
Primary court had jurisdiction over civil defamation claims grounded in customary/Islamic law; trial judgment restored.
Defamation — civil remedies — primary court jurisdiction — customary and Islamic law as basis for civil redress — appellate review of district court’s quashing of trial judgment.
|
19 August 1996 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification of stolen property and alleged recent possession were unreliable.
Criminal law – Evidence – Identification of stolen property – Need for prior description or distinguishing marks; Recent possession – long lapse and small quantity not supporting inference of guilt; Conviction unsafe where identification and possession evidence are defective.
|
19 August 1996 |
|
A prior conviction under s.312(1) bars later charging for stealing the same property under s.312(3) proviso.
Criminal law – Recent possession doctrine – sufficiency of evidence; Double charging – section 312(3) Penal Code proviso bars subsequent charge/conviction for stealing same property; Conviction quashed despite evidence of guilt due to statutory bar.
|
16 August 1996 |
|
Convictions based on doubtful or contradictory night‑time identification evidence are unsafe and were quashed.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Identification evidence at night – necessity of descriptive particularization – contradictions in means of identification (moonlight, firelight, electric light) undermine reliability – extraneous factors (vigilante notoriety/torture) affect credibility – convictions founded on unsafe identification quashed.
|
16 August 1996 |
|
Denial of meaningful cross‑examination and unresolved contradictory evidence (including an undisclosed third party) created reasonable doubt, so convictions were quashed.
* Criminal law – obtaining goods by false pretences and fraudulent uttering – requirement to prove knowledge/mens rea; * Evidence – right to cross-examination; denial or failure to record opportunity is a fatal irregularity unless harmless; * Forged documents – handwriting expert not always necessary where other evidence suffices; * Participation – conviction under s.22 possible without presence at scene but requires adequate linkage to accused; * Reasonable doubt – contradictions and undisclosed third party can vitiate prosecution case.
|
16 August 1996 |
|
Applicant's convictions quashed due to defective handwriting evidence, lack of chain of custody and non-production of key exhibit.
Criminal law – Evidence – Handwriting expert evidence – requirement of chain of custody, in‑court demonstration and linkage between specimen and disputed writings; admissibility of copies of expert reports; identification of documents by witnesses; effect of non-production of exhibit on counts founded on it.
|
16 August 1996 |
|
Late alibi and flight do not overcome eyewitness evidence that the appellant was caught red‑handed for cattle theft.
* Criminal law – Cattle theft under Penal Code ss.268 & 265 – Eyewitness identification and apprehension while in possession of stolen cattle. * Criminal procedure – Alibi raised for first time on appeal – timeliness and credibility. * Criminal procedure – Effect of jumping bail on appellant's right to be heard and credibility. * Sentencing – Application of statutory minimum sentence.
|
14 August 1996 |
|
A trial court judgment delivered without proper compliance with rules on assessors is a nullity and must be quashed and remitted.
Primary/Trial court procedure — requirement for lawful judgment — role and opinions of assessors — failure to deliver proper judgment renders decision a nullity — appeal founded on nullity quashed and record remitted for proper judgment — costs: parties to bear own costs.
|
14 August 1996 |
|
|
13 August 1996 |
|
The appellant's possession and voluntary surrender of recently stolen liquor supported the conviction; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Theft/possession of recently stolen property – Voluntary surrender of items found shortly after theft – Appellate review of sufficiency of evidence – Conviction upheld.
|
13 August 1996 |
|
Cohabitation as concubines does not create marital status or entitlement to maintenance or matrimonial property.
* Family law – Cohabitation/concubinage – Whether cohabitation confers marital status for maintenance or division of property – Presumption of marriage not established by concubinage.
* Maintenance law – Entitlement to maintenance requires legal basis such as marriage or statutory provision properly applied.
* Civil appeals – Appellate courts’ misapplication of statutory provisions can be quashed and set aside.
|
13 August 1996 |
|
|
13 August 1996 |
|
Concubinage does not create a presumed marriage or entitle the respondent to maintenance or matrimonial property.
* Family law – Concubinage v. marriage – concubinage does not create a presumed marriage; proof required for marital status under Marriage Act.
* Maintenance – Section 160(2) Marriage Act – entitlement to maintenance depends on existence of marital relationship.
* Matrimonial property – Section 60 Marriage Act – division requires evidence of matrimonial status and jointly acquired property.
* Appeals – appellate court review where lower courts misapplied statutory provisions to concubinage facts.
|
13 August 1996 |
|
Cohabiting as concubines does not create entitlement to maintenance or matrimonial property division absent presumption of marriage or evidence.
* Family law – Concubinage – Whether cohabiting concubines are entitled to maintenance or division of ‘matrimonial’ property under s.60(2) of the Marriage Act 1971 – Presumption of marriage and evidentiary requirements for recognizing a relationship as matrimonial.
|
13 August 1996 |
|
Cohabitation as concubines does not give rise to a presumption of marriage or entitle a partner to maintenance/matrimonial property under the Marriage Act.
* Family law – Cohabitation vs marriage – Presumption of marriage – Whether cohabitation as concubines raises a presumption of marriage under the Marriage Act.* Family law – Maintenance and matrimonial property – Applicability of statutory provisions where no marriage exists or is presumed.* Civil appeal – Appellate interference – Whether first appellate court erred in substituting its view absent the requisite legal foundation.
|
13 August 1996 |
|
Night-time torchlight identification with material contradictions and absent eyewitness evidence rendered the convictions unsafe.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Night-time identification by torchlight – Reliability and corroboration required. * Criminal procedure – Failure to call available eyewitnesses and police – Effect on safety of conviction. * Evidence – Material contradictions in complainant’s testimony undermine identification.
|
13 August 1996 |
|
Conviction quashed where sole eyewitness identification was weak and uncorroborated; injuries did not sufficiently corroborate identity.
Criminal law — Evidence — Identification by eyewitness — Single eyewitness identification insufficient if weak and uncorroborated; injuries from a struggle do not automatically corroborate identity; appellate intervention where trial court misdirects on corroboration.
|
13 August 1996 |