|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2000 |
|
|
Appeal against robbery conviction and sentence summarily dismissed due to overwhelming evidence.
Criminal procedure – Summary dismissal of appeal under section 364(1) where evidence is overwhelming; issues of identification, delay in arrest and absence of stolen property on arrest.
|
22 December 2000 |
|
Rape conviction quashed because failure to comply with section 240 identification procedures rendered the conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Rape – Identification evidence – Non‑compliance with section 240 Criminal Procedure Act – Identification parade/procedure – PF3 evidence – Procedural irregularities rendering conviction unsafe – Conviction quashed on appeal.
|
22 December 2000 |
|
Appeal allowed where improper admission of PF3 and failure to summon key witnesses made rape conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Rape – Admission of PF3 (medical report) – Compliance with s.240 Criminal Procedure Act – Right to summon medical witness and to cross‑examine – Failure to call independent eyewitness – Procedural irregularities rendering conviction unsafe.
|
22 December 2000 |
|
Court upheld that disputed land formed part of deceased’s estate but ordered compensation for occupier’s unexhausted improvements.
Land law – succession and estates – whether plot formed part of deceased’s estate – weight of oral evidence and sketch plan; equitable compensation – unexhausted improvements by adverse user; limitation – time began on demand after occupant’s death; adverse possession not applicable.
|
21 December 2000 |
|
An honest claim of right to land defeats criminal trespass convictions; ownership disputes belong in civil court.
Criminal trespass (s299 Penal Code) – elements: actus reus and mens rea; Honest claim of right (s9 Penal Code) as complete defence; Disputes over land ownership are civil matters; Criminal courts should not convict where honest possession/claim of right negates criminal intent.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
Failure to conduct a voir dire for a child witness renders her evidence unsworn and uncorroborated, invalidating the conviction.
* Evidence – Tender‑age witness – Voir dire/competency inquiry mandatory; absence renders testimony equivalent to unsworn and necessitates corroboration.
* Corroboration – Hearsay or evidence from non‑eye‑witness/accomplice insufficient to corroborate child’s testimony.
* Medical evidence – Delayed examination (three days) may be inadequate as independent corroboration.
* Criminal law – Burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; uncorroborated child evidence without competency inquiry cannot sustain conviction.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
Child’s untested testimony required corroboration; absence rendered conviction unsafe and it was quashed.
Evidence — child witness — competency inquiry/voir dire mandatory; failure renders testimony equivalent to unworn evidence requiring corroboration. Corroboration — accomplice/hearsay evidence insufficient; delayed medical examination may be inadequate as corroboration. Criminal burden — prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
An honest claim of right or lawful possession defeats criminal trespass where mens rea is not proved; title disputes are civil.
Criminal trespass – s.299 Penal Code – elements: actus reus and mens rea – claim of right as full defence – long peaceful possession and lawful acquisition – civil dispute over title not punishable as criminal trespass; s.9 Penal Code protection.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
A chamber summons unsupported by a compliant affidavit is a nullity and vitiates any appeal dependent on it.
Civil procedure – chamber summons – affidavit requirements (Order XLIII r.2; Order XIX r.3(1)) – affidavits must be confined to deponent’s own knowledge; statements of belief, legal submissions and prayers inadmissible; hearsay/third‑party information admissible only if source disclosed and sworn – defective affidavit renders application a nullity and any dependent appeal incurably invalid.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
Failure to give statutory notice of intention to appeal under s.361(1) CPA renders a criminal appeal incompetent and is dismissed.
Criminal procedure – Appeal competency – Statutory notice of intention to appeal under s.361(1) Criminal Procedure Act 1985 – Requirement to give notice within ten days – Failure to give notice renders appeal untenable and dismissible.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
Appeal dismissed for failure to give statutory notice of intention to appeal under section 361(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Criminal procedure — Statutory notice of intention to appeal — Section 361(c) Criminal Procedure Act 1985 — Notice must be given within ten days — Failure to give notice renders appeal incompetent and liable to dismissal.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
An appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to give the statutory ten‑day notice of intention to appeal under s.362(3) CPA.
* Criminal procedure – Appeal competency – Notice of intention to appeal – Mandatory requirement under section 362(3) Criminal Procedure Act 1985 – Failure to give ten‑day notice renders appeal untenable and subject to dismissal.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
The respondent admitted liability; court entered judgment on admission and ordered a six‑month repayment schedule with a default clause.
* Civil procedure – Judgment on admission – Entry of judgment under Order XII r.4 CPC where defendant admits liability.
* Enforcement – Court approval of parties’ agreed repayment schedule and application of default clause.
* Procedure – Request by an admitting defendant that proceedings not continue against co‑defendant accepted by court.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
Appeal dismissed where notice of intention to appeal was filed eleven days after the statutory ten-day period under section 361(a).
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – Notice of intention to appeal – Requirement under section 361(a) Criminal Procedure Act 1985 – Failure to give notice within prescribed time renders appeal incompetent.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
An application was struck out for being improperly instituted and supported by a defective, hearsay-laden affidavit.
Civil procedure – Chamber summons required for applications (Order XLII r.2); Affidavits – facts within deponent's own knowledge and grounds of belief (Order XIX r.3(1)); Hearsay – information from third parties inadmissible absent disclosed source and corroborating affidavit; Procedural and affidavit defects fatal to an application.
|
15 December 2000 |
|
Revision under s.44(1)(b) MCA is competent to challenge an ex parte judgment when time to set it aside has expired.
• Civil procedure – Revision under s.44(1)(b) MCA 1984 – Power of High Court to revise lower court proceedings where error material to merits involves injustice – Appropriate remedy to challenge expired ex parte judgments.
|
15 December 2000 |
|
Split primary court judgment failing to comply with statutory rules was nullity; revisional proceedings founded on relitigated criminal complaint discontinued.
Primary Courts – Judgment formalities – Split decision between assessors and magistrate – Compliance with Magistrates' Courts (Primary Courts) (Judgment of Court) Rules, 1987 (G.N. 2 of 1987) – Majority and dissent to be recorded; assessors to sign; one deliberative vote per member; failure renders judgment a nullity; Abuse of process – relitigation of same subject in civil and criminal proceedings – criminal complaint cannot found civil revision.
|
15 December 2000 |
|
Non‑compliance with mandatory section 231 Crim. Proc. Act rendered the trial a nullity; convictions quashed and fines refunded.
Criminal procedure – Mandatory compliance with section 231 Criminal Procedure Act – Failure to show on record that court complied renders trial a nullity – Counsel’s statements do not cure absence of judicial compliance – Discretion to order retrial where sentences already served.
|
15 December 2000 |
|
Primary court judgments signed without the required two assessors are void; appeal based on such proceedings dismissed with costs.
Primary Courts – composition – mandatory requirement to sit with not less than two assessors (Magistrates' Courts Act s.7) – Decisions and judgments to be signed by magistrate and each assessor (Magistrates' Courts (Primary Courts) (Judgment of Court) Rules, r.3(2)) – Non-compliance renders proceedings and judgment void – Appeal founded on void proceedings dismissed with costs.
|
15 December 2000 |
|
Appeal dismissed with costs because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal by filing submissions or arguing it.
Civil procedure — Appeal — Failure to prosecute appeal — Appellant's duty to file submissions and argue appeal — Appeal dismissed for non‑prosecution; trial court judgment left undisturbed. Evidence — Conversion/theft and valuation — Claim for value and lost income upheld at trial but not re‑examined on appeal due to appellant's default.
|
15 December 2000 |
|
Appeal dismissed with costs because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal by filing submissions or arguing it.
Civil procedure – appeal – failure to prosecute appeal by not filing submissions – dismissal with costs; Evidence – alleged sale of machine part and proof of loss; Trial review – appellate court declined merits review where appellant failed to argue appeal.
|
15 December 2000 |
|
Clan land cannot be alienated to a son-in-law; bride-price cannot be reclaimed without divorce.
Clan land – alienation and customary authority; bride-price (dowry) – return requires divorce; occupation by invitee – cannot confer ownership; appellate review of lower court reversal.
|
14 December 2000 |
|
Under summary procedure, absent defendants who fail to seek leave to defend face judgment and joint liability for the debt.
* Civil procedure – Summary procedure (Order XXXV CPC) – judgment against absent defendants who fail to apply for leave to defend; * Judgment on admission – effect on co-defendants; * Enforcement – award of principal sum, accrued interest and costs; * Joint and several liability of defendants in debt claims.
|
13 December 2000 |
|
Court entered summary judgment against absent defendants; all three declared jointly and severally liable for principal, interest and costs.
* Civil Procedure – Summary procedure – Order XXXV r.1(1) and r.2(2) CPC – Failure to apply for leave to defend allows summary judgment.
* Judgment on admission – effect and enforcement.
* Liability – declaration of joint and several liability for principal, interest and costs.
|
13 December 2000 |
|
|
13 December 2000 |
|
|
13 December 2000 |
|
Whether the respondent rightfully invoked its contractual option to decline the final share purchase and lawfully obtained replacement licence.
Contract — share purchase — clause granting unilateral option to decline final purchase; interpretation requires both geological prospectivity and economic viability; good faith exercise of contractual option; specific performance refused; remedy ordered: disposal of acquired shares under contractual clause; mining licence replacement examined — held lawful and processed with authority.
|
13 December 2000 |
|
|
13 December 2000 |
|
The appellant's conviction was quashed as unsafe due to weak identification, no medical evidence for wounds, and an untendered caution statement.
Criminal law – armed robbery – safety of conviction – insufficiency of identification evidence; absence of medical evidence linking hospital wounds to gunshot injuries; alleged but untendered caution statement; appellate intervention where conviction unsafe.
|
13 December 2000 |
|
On admission of liability the court entered judgment, fixed interest and instalments, and restrained disposal of specified assets.
Commercial law – Judgment on admission (Order XII r.4 CPC) – debt recovery – instalment repayment timetable approved by court – interlocutory restraint on disposal of defendant’s assets as security – interest and costs awarded.
|
12 December 2000 |
|
Court entered judgment on admission, set a repayment schedule and restrained the respondent from disposing specified assets.
Judgment on admission – Order XII r.4 CPC – entry of judgment where liability is admitted; Enforcement – agreed repayment schedule and default clause; Interim restraint on disposal of assets to secure judgment; Continuation of supplier relationship on cash terms.
|
12 December 2000 |
|
High Court dismissed application for joinder, holding joinder must be sought in the District Court where the suit is pending.
Civil procedure — forum and procedural propriety — joinder of parties — Where a suit is pending in a District Court, applications for joinder ought to be made in that court; High Court is not the proper forum for such joinder. Abandonment of a prayer in submissions withdraws that relief from consideration.
|
12 December 2000 |
|
Appeal against conviction and sentence for causing life‑threatening burn injuries dismissed; sentence upheld.
* Criminal law – liability for causing serious injury by fire – assessment of eyewitness credibility and recanted statements.
* Evidence – appellate review of trial court’s implied factual findings regarding location and sequence of events.
* Sentencing – appellate restraint where conduct exposed victim to life‑threatening harm; sentence upheld as justified.
|
12 December 2000 |
|
Appeal against conviction and five‑year sentence for deliberately burning the complainant dismissed; prosecution evidence and severity of injuries upheld.
* Criminal law – Offence of causing grievous bodily harm by burning – deliberate setting of fire to person with kerosene – severity of injuries (35% burns, potentially fatal).
* Evidence – credibility findings – appellate court will not disturb trial court’s acceptance of prosecution witnesses where reasonably justified.
* Circumstances of incident – location of occurrence (inside victim’s room) supported by witness testimony and property damage.
* Sentencing – five years’ imprisonment within statutory maximum; not manifestly excessive given grave harm.
|
12 December 2000 |
|
Prosecution failed to prove ownership or lack of title to seized pump; acquittal and restitution upheld.
* Criminal law – theft – ownership – burden of proof on prosecution to establish proprietor-ship of alleged stolen property.
* Evidence – identification – witness’ general assertion of "special size" insufficient for reliable identification of property.
* Property rights – good title – purchaser’s title questioned only if vendor’s unlawful acquisition is proven by cogent evidence.
* Caution statement – silence or non-disclosure in a caution statement does not compel conviction.
|
11 December 2000 |
|
Appeal allowed for the accused who was improperly prosecuted as a witness; other convictions upheld based on reliable identification evidence.
* Criminal law – identification evidence – daylight and prolonged opportunity to observe; sufficiency for conviction. * Criminal procedure – alibi and trial directions – appellate review of trial court’s reliance on eyewitnesses. * Abuse of process/malicious prosecution – treating a potential witness as accused where no evidence exists; quashing convictions and sentences. * Relief on appeal – quashing convictions and compensation orders; discharge where no lawful detention remains.
|
11 December 2000 |
|
Third appellant's conviction quashed for lack of evidence; first and second convictions upheld on reliable daytime identification.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – parade and witness identification – reliability where observation was in daytime and of substantial duration.
* Criminal procedure – Witness versus accused – improper conversion of a volunteer witness into an accused; conviction unsafe absent supporting evidence.
* Police conduct – allegation of malicious prosecution and its effect on safety of conviction.
* Appeal – appellate scrutiny of trial court's directions and sufficiency of evidence.
|
11 December 2000 |
|
Failure to take separate pleas on multiple counts renders the trial a nullity; convictions quashed and no retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – Arraignment and pleas: each count must be read and a separate plea recorded; failure renders trial nullity; alibi defence requires no burden of proof; inconsistent prosecution evidence may preclude retrial; illegal sentence where it exceeds statutory maximum.
|
10 December 2000 |
|
Leave to appeal was refused where the application disclosed no legal point warranting determination by the Court of Appeal.
Appellate jurisdiction – leave to appeal under s.5(1)(c) Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1979 – adequacy of affidavit to disclose arguable points of law – judicial review vs appeal – preliminary objection on proper remedy.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
Court entered judgment on admission for the principal sum, awarded costs, and reserved interest for later argument.
Civil procedure – judgment on admission of liability; award of principal sum and costs; issue of interest reserved for further argument.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
On admission of liability the court entered judgment for the plaintiff for the claimed principal sum and awarded costs.
Civil procedure – judgment on admission of liability – entry of judgment for claimed principal sum; award of costs to successful plaintiff.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
Judgment on admission entered for admitted debt; court ordered six monthly instalments and waived interest on decretal amount and costs.
* Civil procedure – Judgment on admission – Order XII r.4 CPC – entry of judgment for admitted amount; * Enforcement – repayment by instalments and application of usual default clause; * Interest – notation of contractual/post-judgment interest and express waiver of interest on decretal amount and costs.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
|
8 December 2000 |
|
Court awards plaintiff debt of shs.10,502,689.28 with contractual interest, instalments, default clause and taxed costs.
Debt recovery; contractual and post-judgment interest; instalment repayment order; default clause; costs to be taxed.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification and possession evidence were equivocal and failed to meet the criminal standard of proof.
Criminal law — Robbery with violence — Identification evidence in darkness — Recognition evidence — Possession of alleged stolen property — Proof of provenance and condition required — Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt — Duty of prosecution and trial court to probe unclear identificatory and recovery evidence.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
Application for leave to appeal dismissed where no legal issues requiring the Court of Appeal were raised and appeal, not review, was the proper remedy.
Leave to appeal — whether affidavit raises arguable points of law for Court of Appeal; Appeal v. judicial review — judicial review a last resort where appeal available; Failure to file directed written submissions — court may decide on affidavits alone.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
Whether statements at a local dispute meeting were defamatory and whether qualified privilege was defeated by malice.
Defamation — elements: publication, falsity and lowering in community; Admission and corroboration of utterance; Qualified privilege for meetings called to resolve local disputes; Abuse of privilege and malice defeats qualified privilege; Appellate duty to re-evaluate evidence where lower court’s assessment is perfunctory.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
Execution of a decree does not divest an appellate court of jurisdiction; appeals must be decided on their merits unless execution is stayed.
* Civil procedure – Appeal – Effect of execution of decree pending appeal – Execution does not oust appellate jurisdiction absent stay of execution.
* Civil procedure – Appellate jurisdiction – Pending appeal remains competent and must be determined on merits even if decree satisfied by execution.
* Civil procedure – Procedural fairness – Appellate court must address grounds of appeal and not decide on extraneous matters.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
A successful objector to an attachment cannot necessarily recover substantial costs under s.329; civil suit may be required.
Criminal Procedure — Attachment objections under s.329 CPA — Costs: scope and limits of s.329(7); general costs/compensation powers under ss.345–350; subordinate court cap on awards; substantial expenses recoverable by civil suit.
|
8 December 2000 |
|
A district court’s decision on an appeal that was never properly filed is a nullity and must be quashed.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Proper filing requires payment of appeal fees – Application for extension of time to file appeal is distinct from a duly lodged appeal – District court lacks jurisdiction to decide a non-existent appeal – Judgment rendered on a non-existent appeal is a nullity and must be set aside – Application for leave to file out of time must be heard inter partes.
|
7 December 2000 |