|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| February 2024 |
|
|
|
9 February 2024 |
|
Non‑joinder objection waived and respondent proved hereditary ownership; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law – proof of ownership – strict proof and burden of proof on party asserting title; Non‑joinder – necessary party test, Order 1 Rules 9 and 13 CPC (objections waived if not timely raised); Evidence – weight of uncontradicted testimony including vendor’s admission at ward tribunal; Appellate review – re‑evaluation of evidence on first appeal.
|
9 February 2024 |
|
|
9 February 2024 |
|
Court granted extension of time to appeal due to procedural (technical) delay and a potential illegality in the record.
* Civil procedure – Extension of time under section 11(1) AJA – technical delay arising from procedural defect as sufficient cause for enlargement of time; illegality in record as ground for extension. * Appeal procedure – non‑service of notice of appeal renders appeal incompetent. * Exercise of judicial discretion – diligence by applicant and established authorities justify enlargement of time.
|
9 February 2024 |
|
Court found the DLHT lacked pecuniary jurisdiction over a matrimonial mortgage dispute and nullified its proceedings.
Land law – mortgage of matrimonial property – whether dispute falls within land laws; DLHT jurisdiction – pecuniary limits; proceedings without jurisdiction are nullities.
|
9 February 2024 |
|
Claim for recovery of land dismissed as time-barred; limitation runs from date of trespass, not discovery.
Land law – limitation period for recovery of land (12 years) – time runs from date of trespass not date of claimant's awareness; court record presumed accurate; time-bar renders proceedings a nullity.
|
9 February 2024 |
|
The applicant’s certification application was not time‑barred; the preliminary objection was overruled and certification hearing ordered.
* Appellate procedure – Certification on a point of law required for appeals originating in primary courts – Time limit for certification not specifically prescribed by statute; Rule 46(1) requires certificate after notice of appeal.
* Limitation – Where no period is provided, item 21, Part III of the Law of Limitation Act supplies a 60‑day period for such applications.
* Statutory amendment – Miscellaneous Amendments Act No. 11 of 2023 abolished leave to appeal requirement; leave timing arguments are therefore immaterial.
|
9 February 2024 |
|
Procedural failures in tendering exhibits and ignoring defence evidence vitiated convictions for wildlife offences.
Criminal procedure – admissibility of exhibits – prosecutor cannot tender exhibits unless sworn; failure to read admitted exhibits warrants expungement; right to cross-examination fundamental; failure to consider defence evidence vitiates judgment; sufficiency of evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
9 February 2024 |
|
Application to revoke probate struck out after court found applicants' joint affidavit tainted with falsehoods.
Probate — authenticity of death certificate; validity of Will (omission of heir; inclusion of divorced spouse's former matrimonial property); affidavit tainted with untruths — affidavit struck out; inability to proceed on merits without credible affidavit.
|
9 February 2024 |
|
Amendment removed leave requirement for appeals to the Court of Appeal, rendering pending leave application moot.
Appellate jurisdiction — amendment to section 5 AJA removing leave requirement for appeals to the Court of Appeal — procedural law with retrospective effect — pending leave application rendered moot and struck out.
|
9 February 2024 |
|
Counsel's maternity leave and unspecified illegality did not justify extension of time; applicant failed to account for delay.
Extension of time — requirements under Lyamuya: account for all days of delay, absence of inordinate delay, diligence, and prejudice — maternity leave of counsel not per se good cause — illegality must be apparent on the face of the record and specifically pleaded — failure to account for each day is fatal.
|
9 February 2024 |
|
A district tribunal lacks jurisdiction to revise a ward decision after it has already heard the appeal arising from that decision.
Land law — Revision versus appeal — Jurisdiction of District Land & Housing Tribunal; functus officio — A tribunal cannot revise decisions in respect of which it has already heard and determined an appeal; proper forum to nullify both Ward and District Tribunal proceedings is the High Court; limitation issues for non-parties (when time begins) are secondary where jurisdictional defect exists.
|
9 February 2024 |
|
High Court has jurisdiction despite pecuniary limits; jurisdiction assessed by substantive claim, not general damages.
Civil procedure – Jurisdictional threshold – Pecuniary jurisdiction assessed by substantive claim, not discretionary reliefs; Section 13 CPC proviso preserves High Court's general jurisdiction; preliminary objection overruled.
|
9 February 2024 |
|
A dispute over an alleged revocation of a deed of gift via a will is a probate, not a land, matter.
Jurisdiction – Land Court v Probate Court; validity of wills; revocation of deed of gift; competence of suit; preliminary objection on point of law.
|
8 February 2024 |
|
|
8 February 2024 |
|
A loan claim secured by mortgage remains commercial; magistrates' court had jurisdiction and trial dismissal for being a land matter was erroneous.
Commercial law – loan/overdraft secured by mortgage – whether security converts claim into land dispute; Jurisdiction – Resident Magistrate's Court under s.40(3) Magistrates' Courts Act; Procedure – bound by pleadings vs. right to be heard on unpleaded point of law.
|
8 February 2024 |
|
|
8 February 2024 |
|
|
8 February 2024 |
|
Applicant granted 14-day extension to file review; prosecuting earlier proceedings and awaiting copies excluded, and alleged illegality upheld.
Law of Limitation Act — s.21(2) (exclusion of time spent prosecuting other proceedings) and s.19(2) (time awaiting documents) — extension of time to file review; review — apprehended illegality/right to be heard as basis for extension.
|
8 February 2024 |
|
An appeal from a Primary Court filed directly in the High Court is incompetent and must be struck out unless routed through the District Court.
Jurisdiction — appeals from Primary Courts — mandatory filing first in District Court under section 25(3)–(4) Magistrates' Courts Act and GN. No. 312 of 1964; Procedural compliance — failure to follow statutory appellate route renders appeal incompetent and subject to being struck out; Jurisdictional defects — can be raised at any stage and bar determination on merits; Refiling — liberty to refile subject to appeal rules and limitation.
|
8 February 2024 |
|
Electronic filing is completed on payment of court fees; late payment rendered the applicant's leave application time-barred.
* Civil procedure – Electronic filing (GN No. 148 of 2018) – Rule 21 – filing date determined by payment of court fees; * Appeals – leave to appeal to Court of Appeal – 30-day time limit; * Procedural law – effect of unpaid electronic submissions on time limits.
|
8 February 2024 |
|
|
8 February 2024 |
|
Insufficient proof of service vitiates ex parte judgment; matter remitted for retrial so both parties heard.
Civil procedure – service of process – affidavit of service required; Ex parte proceedings – insufficient proof of service vitiates judgment; Constitutional law – right to be heard (Article 13(6)(a)) – denial of hearing nullifies decision; Appellate procedure – appellate court should remit for retrial rather than determine merits when a party was condemned unheard; Procedural – late submissions filed without leave are disregarded.
|
8 February 2024 |
Administrative Law – public officers – president’s powers to retire public officers in the public interest – procedure for retiring public officers in the public interest – failure by president to give reasons for retiring applicant in the public interest – validity of president’s decision – Public Service Act, cap 298 RE 2019, Section 24(1); Regulation 29(1), and Order F40
Administrative Law – judicial review – certiorari – applicant seeking to quash the president’s decision to retire him in the public interest – failure by president to give reasons for retiring applicant in the public interest – whether president’s decision was ultra vires and against the rules of natural justice |
8 February 2024 |
|
Primary Court appeals must be lodged in the District Court under s25(3); leave to file late does not change venue.
* Civil procedure – Appeals from Primary Courts – Mode and venue – Section 25(3) Magistrates' Courts Act requires filing in the District Court where the Primary Court is located; leave to file out of time does not alter filing venue. * Remedy – Striking out improperly lodged appeal with leave to refile.
|
8 February 2024 |
|
|
8 February 2024 |
|
Appeal allowed: convictions quashed because chain of custody for the crucial affidavit (Exhibit P2) was not established.
Criminal law – Forgery and uttering – Documentary evidence – Chain of custody and provenance of exhibits – Documentary authenticity – Expert handwriting evidence – Appellate rehearing and re-evaluation of trial record.
|
8 February 2024 |
|
Cautioned statement and victim identification upheld; unsworn witness expunged but armed robbery conviction affirmed.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Elements: theft, use of dangerous weapon, weapon directed at victim; Evidence – admissibility of cautioned statement; Visual identification – application of Waziri Amani factors; Evidence procedure – unsworn witness testimony expunged; Procedural irregularities – minor/curable defects do not vitiate trial.
|
8 February 2024 |
|
Award of damages was unjustified where malicious prosecution elements were not proven; district court judgment quashed.
* Civil procedure – appeal – inconsistency in judgment – award of damages despite finding no malice.
* Tort – malicious prosecution – elements required: prosecution, favourable termination, malice, absence of reasonable and probable cause, and damage.
* Defamation/damages – necessity of proving culpable conduct and causal loss before award.
|
8 February 2024 |
|
Weak identification, inadmissible confession and investigative failures led to acquittal for alleged murder.
Criminal law – Murder: elements required; identification evidence and circumstantial proof; inadmissibility of confession recorded outside prescribed time; insufficiency of investigation (failure to trace phone evidence); conviction cannot rest on suspicion alone.
|
8 February 2024 |
|
|
8 February 2024 |
|
Court vacated a scheduling order and allowed defendants to amend their defence in the interests of justice, with conditions.
Civil procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Order VI r.17 CPC permits amendments at any stage – Scheduling order restricts departures – Order VIII r.23 allows amendment only if necessary in the interests of justice – Court may vacate scheduling order and impose conditions (timeframe and costs).
|
7 February 2024 |
|
|
7 February 2024 |
|
|
7 February 2024 |
|
|
7 February 2024 |
|
Extension of time granted due to apparent procedural illegality; sickness partly excused but some delay remained unaccounted for.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – grounds: sickness and apparent illegality on the face of the record; requirement to account for each day of delay. * Evidence – medical documents admissible and, if uncontested, can justify exclusion of sick period. * Appeal procedure – party obliged to follow up readiness of appeal documents. * Locus in quo – procedural irregularity may amount to apparent illegality justifying extension.
|
7 February 2024 |
|
Appeal dismissed: lower courts properly divided matrimonial property and justifiably increased child maintenance.
* Family law – matrimonial property division – requirement to prove contributions in money, property or work – reliance on oral evidence where no documentary proof exists.
* Family law – maintenance of children – consideration of parent’s means and station in life (s129 LMA) and economic circumstances; relevance of property awarded on appeal to assess maintenance.
* Civil procedure – appellate review – upholding discretionary findings of fact where supported by record and absence of contrary evidence.
|
7 February 2024 |
|
An extension application failing to cite section 41(2) Cap 216 is incompetent and struck out with costs.
* Land law – Extension of time to appeal – Requirement to cite specific enabling provision – section 41(2) Land Disputes Courts Act (Cap 216) – Wrong citation renders application incompetent – Overriding objective cannot displace mandatory procedural rules.
|
7 February 2024 |
|
Petition for letters of administration rejected because witness evidence indicated a possible will, defeating intestacy allegation.
* Probate law – letters of administration – intestacy requirement – application must show diligent search and no valid will (section 56(1)(e) PAEA).
* Evidentiary inconsistency – witness testimony suggesting existence of a will renders an intestacy petition incompetent.
* Procedural stage – ownership disputes premature until an administrator files an inventory (section 107 PAEA).
* Caveat – becomes ineffectual where the underlying petition is rejected for incompetence.
|
7 February 2024 |
|
|
7 February 2024 |
|
|
7 February 2024 |
|
|
7 February 2024 |
|
|
7 February 2024 |
|
Court struck out application to declare unsound mind and appoint a manager for lack of a prescribed medical certificate.
Mental Health Act – statutory requirement for medical certificate (Form No.2) signed by a mental health practitioner; stroke vs mental disorder; evidentiary sufficiency for section 19 applications to manage estate; court’s duty to take judicial notice only of compliant medical certificates.
|
7 February 2024 |
|
The applicant’s extension request was struck out as statutory amendment removed the leave requirement, rendering the application moot.
Land law — Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal — Proper statutory basis (AJA s.11(1) and LDCA s.47) — Law of Limitation s.14(1) — Amendment (Legal Sector Laws (Misc. Amendments) Act No.11/2023) removing leave requirement — application overtaken by events.
|
7 February 2024 |
|
An arbitrator may not convert an unfair‑termination claim into breach‑of‑contract relief contrary to the pleadings.
* Labour law – fixed‑term contracts – applicability of section 37 ELRA – requirement of valid reasons and fair procedure for termination; * Distinction between unfair termination and breach of contract – remedies differ; * Pleadings – parties bound by pleadings; arbitrator cannot grant reliefs not prayed for; * Legitimate expectation – renewal of contract must be established to engage unfair‑termination protection; * Overtime claim left undetermined due to jurisdictional finding.
|
7 February 2024 |
|
Appellate court upheld conviction for grave sexual abuse based on credible child evidence despite minor procedural and medical defects.
Criminal law – grave sexual abuse under s.138C Penal Code – adequacy of charge and curability of omission; Evidence – credibility of child witness; s.127 Evidence Act compliance; medical corroboration in sexual offences; appellate re‑evaluation where trial judgment lacks analysis; alleged judicial bias.
|
7 February 2024 |
|
Court granted rectification of patent clerical and numerical errors in a judgment and decree under sections 95–96 CPC.
Civil procedure – Rectification of judgment and decree – Sections 95 & 96 CPC – Errors apparent on the face of record – Patent/clerical mistakes – Power of a different judge to correct when original judge unavailable.
|
7 February 2024 |
Contract Law-guarantee agreements-nature and scope of guarantee agreements-factors to determine the existence and length of guarantee agreements-risks associated with agreements- purpose and risk of guarantee agreements.
Contract Law-guarantee agreements-termination of guarantee agreements-rights and obligations arising from a guarantee agreement-requirement for guarantee agreements to specify obligations of the guarantor to the lender - whether there was a guarantee agreement executed between parties.
Mortgages and Charges-validity of mortgage documents - test for validity - dispute with regards to contents of the documents signed vis-a-vis the documents registered with registrar of titles- test for validity of mortgage documents registered by a charge with the registrar but disputed by the chargor. |
7 February 2024 |
|
Omission to sign recorded witness evidence vitiates proceedings and requires retrial before a different chairman.
Civil procedure — Evidence — Requirement that the presiding officer sign the recorded testimony of each witness (Order XVIII r.5 CPC; s.210(1) CPA); omission to sign undermines authenticity of record and is fatal to proceedings; judgment quashed and matter remitted for retrial before different chairman and assessors.
|
7 February 2024 |