|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| August 2002 |
|
|
Application for stay of execution denied where applicant offered only speculative timelines and risked non-recovery for the decree holder.
Commercial law — Stay of execution — Applicant seeking time to satisfy decretal sum — Requirement to show credible, substantiated timeline and good cause — Balance of convenience and prejudice to decree holder — Discretion to refuse stay where recovery is likely jeopardized by uncertainty.
|
30 August 2002 |
|
Preliminary objection dismissed; court finds vessel ownership transfer and non-joinder raise jurisdictional defects in the attachment, final substantive ruling not recorded.
• Maritime/Attachment — Arrest/attachment of vessel — validity where ownership changed and later owner not party to original proceedings.
• Civil procedure — Revision under Magistrates' Courts Act and Civil Procedure Code — timeliness and form of application.
• Jurisdiction — effect of transfer of vessel ownership on subordinate court's jurisdiction to order attachment.
• Party joinder — necessity to join subsequent owners or affected third parties in proceedings affecting property.
|
30 August 2002 |
|
Preliminary procedural objections (timeliness, citation errors) dismissed; revision challenging vessel attachment allowed to proceed.
Civil procedure — Revision — Preliminary objections: timeliness and incorrect citation of provisions; timeliness not fatal if filed within prescribed period; imperfect citation not fatal; Orders XXI Rules cited out of context; substantive challenge to attachment of vessel permitted to proceed.
|
30 August 2002 |
|
An unsigned tribunal decree (even if certified) fails Rule 44 and renders the appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out with costs.
Housing law – Appeals – Validity of decree – Requirement under Rule 44 GN No.249/1990 that decree be signed by Chairman or Registrar – Absence of signature fatal; certified copy insufficient to cure defect – Appeal incompetent and struck out with costs.
|
29 August 2002 |
|
Reported
Admiralty — Matters constituting admiralty — Contract for rendering services to a ship - Whether an admiralty matter.
Admiralty - Jurisdiction - Matters presented before the District Court concerned contract to render services to a ship - Whether District Court has jurisdiction to try the case - East African Merchant Shipping (Consequential Provisions) Act 1966, second Schedule.
Admiralty matters — Pecuniary jurisdiction — Services rendered amounting to USD 273 355.43 - Whether District Court had jurisdiction to hear the case - Section 6 ofthe Civil Procedure Code Act 1966.
Civil Practice and Procedure - Ex parte order — Interim ex parte Order - Pleadings not showing sufficient grounds for dispensing with the law - Whether Order issued in abuse of process of the law - Order XXXVII, rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code Act 1966.
Civil Practice and Procedure — Interim ex parte order — Order issued on 12 July 2002 but served on the Applicant on 21 August 2002 - Whether Order is ® compliant with the law — Order XXXVII, rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code Act 1966.
Civil Practice and Procedure - Revisional proceedings - Whether High Court can revise an interlocutory ex-parte order granted by the District Court - Section 44(l)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1984. |
28 August 2002 |
|
Admission of taking property without explanation necessitated retrial to determine lawfulness.
Civil procedure – admission of taking property – adequacy of admission without explanations – duty of trial court to inquire into circumstances before entering judgment – retrial de novo where parties not properly heard.
|
28 August 2002 |
|
An appeal by multiple appellants is incompetent where each appellant fails to file and sign his or her own memorandum and compliance with section 361 is not shown.
Criminal procedure – Appeal competency – Section 361 CPA compliance – Receipt of certified copy and timing of appeal – Requirement that each appellant file and sign own memorandum – One appellant cannot sign for another – Appeal struck out.
|
26 August 2002 |
|
Second appeal dismissed: concurrent factual findings upheld; ex parte judgment justified; missing record insufficient to prevent judgment.
Civil procedure — second appeal — concurrent findings of fact — will not be disturbed absent misapprehension of evidence, miscarriage of justice, or legal error. Civil procedure — ex parte judgment — justified where party frustrates process by tearing summons and refusing to appear. Civil procedure — missing record — Order 39 Rule 24 permits appellate court to compose judgment if available evidence suffices to decide the case.
|
26 August 2002 |
|
Non-compliant customary wills did not displace respondent's ownership established by admission and locus visit.
Customary wills – Formal requirements under GN.436/63 – Non-compliance; Evidence – Oral admissions and locus in quo visit; Customary succession – Vesting in male heir; Appellate review – Credibility and findings of primary court.
|
26 August 2002 |
|
Long unexplained delay and lack of arguable grounds justify refusal of leave to appeal out of time.
Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – requirement to show satisfactory explanation for delay – bereavement insufficient without explanation for prolonged inaction – court may assess merits of intended appeal and refuse leave where appeal lacks substance (Magistrates Courts Act ss.25(b), 28(3)).
|
23 August 2002 |
|
|
23 August 2002 |
|
Application for leave to appeal out of time refused; court held no duty to notify parties of judgment availability and late limitation claims waived.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal out of time – grant requires sufficient excuse for delay Civil procedure – duty to inform parties – no obligation on court to notify litigants that judgment copies are ready Limitation – objection not raised at trial cannot be belatedly raised years later in out-of-time appeal application
|
21 August 2002 |
|
|
21 August 2002 |
|
A pledgee cannot acquire pledged land on default absent a contractual transfer; sale to satisfy the debt is appropriate.
Security/pledge – loan secured by land – ownership does not pass on default absent contractual provision or court order. Remedies – sale of pledged property to satisfy debt; surplus returned to debtor. Contract interpretation – need for explicit stipulation for transfer of pledged property.
|
20 August 2002 |
|
Village allocation cannot oust respondent’s possessory rights where prior occupation and improvements existed.
Land law – village allocation versus prior possession – continuous cultivation and planting of permanent trees confer possessory protection; village cannot reallocate land under development by a villager; appellate review of detailed first appellate findings.
|
20 August 2002 |
|
Documentary title supported by Primary Court upheld; prior owner’s posthumous challenge invalid, children inherit the property.
Probate – ownership dispute over immovable property – documentary title vs. oral family testimony; Probate – locus to challenge transfer – prior owner’s knowledge and failure to sue during lifetime bars posthumous claims; Appellate review – re-evaluation of evidence by appellate court.
|
20 August 2002 |
|
Documentary title and the original owner's acquiescence defeat heirs' later fraud claim; appeal allowed with costs.
Probate — property dispute over title to house — documentary title versus oral allegations of fraudulent registration — evaluation of evidence on appeal — heirs' standing where original owner knew of registration and did not pursue rights.
|
20 August 2002 |
|
Documentary title to estate property prevails absent sufficient proof of fraud or timely challenge by the original owner.
Probate and administration – ownership dispute over estate property – weight of documentary title versus oral allegations of fraud – effect of original owner's knowledge and failure to challenge registration before death.
|
20 August 2002 |
|
Primary court correctly upheld documentary title; appellate court erred in re-evaluating ownership, appeal allowed with costs.
Probate and succession – ownership of deceased’s property – weight of documentary evidence – appellate review of factual findings – failure of prior owner to assert rights during lifetime bars successors’ claims; heirs’ entitlement.
|
20 August 2002 |
|
District court rightly ordered further evidence, found village minutes forged, and dismissed the appellant's appeal with costs.
Land law – village shamba dispute – admissibility and genuineness of village committee minutes – appellate power to order additional evidence (Magistrates' Courts Law s.21(1)) – error or irregularity requiring reversal only if it occasioned failure of justice (s.37(2)).
|
20 August 2002 |
|
|
19 August 2002 |
|
|
12 August 2002 |
|
High Court agrees with District Court that respondent’s inherited ownership prevailed; appeal dismissed, no costs.
Civil appeal — appellate review where lower courts differ — ownership evidence by purchase and bequest — sale of land (shamba) and remedies by redemption — no costs where respondent reported deceased.
|
12 August 2002 |
|
The applicant’s revisional application was dismissed as res judicata; extension of time left unconsidered.
Civil procedure — Revision — Res judicata — Revision barred where same matter has been finally dealt with on prior appeal or extended jurisdiction proceedings; Judicial authority — High Court cannot effectively revisit decisions already dismissed by courts exercising extended jurisdiction or by appellate processes; Extension of time — rendered academic where primary revisional relief is barred; Revision should not be used as an alternative to appeal.
|
12 August 2002 |
|
Leave to appeal out of time granted where trial court ordered ex-parte proof before defence time expired and set-aside application was timely.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal out of time – ex-parte judgment – ordering ex-parte proof before expiry of time to file defence – time for applying to set aside under O.9 R.13 – appealability of dismissal on technicality.
|
7 August 2002 |
|
An appeal filed five days late must be dismissed as time-barred, regardless of whether limitation was pleaded.
Appeal — limitation — computation of appeal period where last day falls on weekend — appeal filed five days late — mandatory dismissal of time-barred appeal even if limitation not pleaded — appellate power to quash and substitute orders.
|
7 August 2002 |
|
An appeal lodged after the 30‑day statutory period under section 25(1) is time‑barred and dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure — Appeals — Time limit for instituting appeal — Section 25(1), Magistrates' Courts Act, 1984 — Appeal instituted after 30 days — Appeal dismissed as time‑barred; costs awarded.
|
7 August 2002 |
|
An appeal filed six days after the 30‑day statutory limit was dismissed as time‑barred with costs.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Time limit for instituting appeals – Section 25(1) Magistrates Courts Act 1984 – Appeal instituted after 30 days is time‑barred – Dismissal with costs.
|
7 August 2002 |
|
Accused acquitted of murder due to doubtful confessions, inconsistent identification evidence, and failure to call key eyewitness.
Criminal law — Murder; Identification evidence — contradictions and poor identification; Confessions — voluntariness and need for corroboration; Failure to call key eyewitness — effect on prosecution case; Reasonable doubt — acquittal.
|
5 August 2002 |
|
Temporary injunction against sale of mortgaged property set aside where injunction prerequisites were not established.
Civil procedure – Temporary injunctions; requirements: serious triable issue, probability of success, irreparable harm, balance of convenience; injunction cannot be based on matters outside pleadings or contract terms; mortgage law – lender’s right to sell on default; improper exercise of discretion by lower court.
|
2 August 2002 |
|
Limitation runs from receipt of notice; time to obtain a copy is excluded, so revisional application was timely.
Civil procedure – Limitation: time to lodge appeal/revisional application accrues upon notice to aggrieved party; time obtaining copy excluded under s.19(3) Law of Limitation Act (mutatis mutandis). Civil procedure – Validity of filings: a defective initial application lacking annexed ruling does not necessarily invalidate a subsequent timely application. Civil procedure – Revision: appellate court may quash trial court rulings that improperly set aside ex parte decrees.
|
2 August 2002 |
|
Time for filing revision accrues on notice; copy‑obtaining period is excluded and a time‑barred setting aside of an ex parte decree was quashed.
Civil procedure — limitation — time for appeal/revision accrues on notice to aggrieved party; period to obtain copy excluded under Law of Limitation Act s.9(3). Setting aside ex parte decree — application filed out of time — time‑bar renders order invalid and is subject to quashing on revision.
|
2 August 2002 |
|
Delay excluded while awaiting copy of ruling; High Court quashed order setting aside ex parte decree and restored it.
Limitation — accrual of time when aggrieved party receives notice; Law of Limitation Act s.19(3) — exclusion of time spent obtaining copy of judgment; Revision — competence where impugned ruling initially not annexed; Revisionary power — quashing trial court order setting aside ex parte decree and restoring ex parte decree; Service — substituted service by publication and its justification.
|
2 August 2002 |
|
High Court dismissed two appeals: upheld that an inter vivos gift need not await letters of administration and that village executive may be necessary party.
Property law – gift inter vivos – where land is shown to have been given by grandmother during her lifetime, no letters of administration are required before suing as owner. Property law – transfer by person without title – such transfer is void and ineffective to defeat prior gift. Civil procedure – appeals – co‑appellant’s failure to join or sign an appeal may result in treating appeal as brought by the participating appellant. Civil procedure – representation of village interests – Afisa Mtendaji wa Kijiji is the village executive and may be a necessary party in land disputes. Civil procedure – ex parte judgments – an aggrieved party can challenge an ex parte decision, but appellate interference requires that the record evidence not support the primary court’s findings.
|
2 August 2002 |
|
A purchaser who knows of an injunction-caused delay and fails to take prompt action affirms the contract and may be precluded from claiming delay damages.
Contract law – sale of land – delay in delivery caused by third‑party injunction – purchaser’s knowledge and inaction; affirmation/waiver and estoppel; doctrine of frustration; entitlement to damages for delay.
|
2 August 2002 |
|
Trial court erred by recording defendant's evidence in absence of counsel; such proceedings are null and void.
Advocates — conduct of case — absence of advocate — court not properly constituted to proceed; recording evidence in absence of counsel nullifies proceedings; Order III Rule 1 and Order V Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code; right to representation and fair trial procedure.
|
2 August 2002 |
|
Proceedings conducted without parties' briefed advocates are null; magistrate erred in calling evidence in their absence.
Civil procedure – appearance by advocate – conduct of a case by an advocate briefed by a party – parties in person cannot substitute for briefed advocates; trial proceedings taken in advocates' absence are nullity; record to be remitted and judgment set aside.
|
2 August 2002 |
|
Proceedings taken by calling an unrepresented defendant while counsel with conduct were absent are a nullity and must be quashed.
Advocates – conduct of proceedings – once briefed advocate has conduct of the case; Appearance by advocate vs personal attendance (Order III r.1; Order V r.5 CPC); Proceedings and evidence taken in absence of advocate who has conduct of the case – nullity; Remedy – quash proceedings, remit for re‑hearing and fresh judgment.
|
2 August 2002 |
|
High Court dismissed appeal founded on a time-barred District Court appeal and corrected a clerical error to award costs to the successful party.
Civil procedure – appeal filed out of time – time-barred District Court appeal renders subsequent High Court appeal invalid; correction of clerical error under section 96 Civil Procedure Code; costs awarded to successful party.
|
1 August 2002 |
|
|
1 August 2002 |
|
A clerical gender slip may be corrected; an unsigned, unstamped power of attorney is ineffective for court representation.
Civil procedure — Slip rule (s.96 CPC) — Correction of clerical error — Misidentification of party’s gender Agency / Representation — Power of attorney — Validity requires proper authentication (signature/stamp); unsigned/unstamped document ineffective Procedure — Where judgment contains clerical slips, aggrieved party should apply to trial court for amendment Remedies — Appeal allowed to amend district court judgment and directions to registrar to notify parties
|
1 August 2002 |
|
Clerical misidentification in judgment is correctible under the slip rule; defective power of attorney is ineffective.
Civil procedure — Slip rule (section 96, Civil Procedure Code) — correction of clerical errors in judgment; Representation — validity of power of attorney in court proceedings — necessity of proper authentication (magistrate signature/stamp); Amendment of lower court judgment — appellate correction and procedural directions.
|
1 August 2002 |