|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1974 |
|
|
Evidence insufficient for robbery; conviction quashed and substituted with common assault and immediate release ordered.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – sufficiency of evidence; proximity of witnesses and failure to appropriate property inconsistent with robbery; appellate substitution of lesser conviction – common assault; sentence implications.
|
18 December 1974 |
|
Conviction for obtaining money by false pretence upheld; trial court’s ownership declaration set aside and referred to civil court.
* Criminal law – Obtaining by false pretence – selling same land twice – representation that land had no encumbrance – conviction properly based on inconsistent conduct and inadequate defence.
* Civil vs criminal jurisdiction – trial court should not decide ownership/title disputes in criminal proceedings; such matters belong in civil courts.
|
18 December 1974 |
|
Appellate court affirmed robbery conviction but reduced an excessive ten-year sentence to six years for a first offender.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Identification and credibility of eyewitnesses – Sentence review – Trial magistrate’s sentencing powers – Reduction of excessive sentence for first offender where victim uninjured though weapon used.
|
18 December 1974 |
|
Appeal against robbery conviction dismissed; ten‑year sentence set aside and replaced with seven years due to excess and mitigating factors.
* Criminal law – Robbery with violence – sufficiency of evidence to prove theft at point of knife – witness identification and credibility. * Criminal procedure – Appeal against conviction – effect of minor contradictions in witness accounts. * Sentencing – Magistrate’s sentencing power – excess of jurisdiction and substitution of a lesser term where offender is first‑time and victim not injured.
|
18 December 1974 |
|
Conviction for cash theft upheld (robbery staged); conviction for stock shortages quashed for lack of proof.
Criminal law – Theft – Staged robbery as cover for embezzlement – Credibility and circumstantial evidence; Stock shortages – Auditor’s aggregate report insufficient without periodic stock records to prove theft; Negligence is not theft; Variation of restitution order to reflect proved loss.
|
13 December 1974 |
|
Theft conviction for staged robbery affirmed; stock-shortage conviction quashed and repayment reduced to proven loss.
Theft – staged robbery – credibility of witnesses and audit records; Stock shortages – insufficiency of periodic stock records and access by others — conviction unsafe; Sentence and restitution — seven years affirmed, repayment reduced to proven amount.
|
13 December 1974 |
|
Appellate court reduced a three‑year minimum sentence to eighteen months, holding the trial court misapplied the obsolete "special circumstances" test.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act – obsolete "special circumstances" test (1963) replaced by requirement to consider "all the circumstances" (1972); mitigation: small amount, guilty plea, no prior record; offence: stealing postal matters undermines public confidence.
|
11 December 1974 |
|
Burglary conviction reduced to housebreaking; stealing conviction upheld; sentence reduced because prior convictions were not proven.
* Criminal law – identification evidence – corroboration by maker of clothing and neighbour – sufficiency to convict for unlawful entry and theft.
* Criminal procedure – feigned insanity – section 164 Criminal Procedure Code – referral for medical examination only where court has reason to believe accused is of unsound mind.
* Offence definition – burglary requires night-time commission; absence of proof of night-time commission requires substitution to housebreaking.
* Sentencing – prior convictions must be proved before being relied upon; unproved antecedents cannot justify increased sentence.
* Appellate relief – power to substitute convictions and vary sentences where factual basis or procedure is inadequate.
|
11 December 1974 |
|
Voice identification alone, especially after delayed arrest, is insufficient to sustain a robbery conviction.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Voice recognition alone insufficient for conviction; delay in arrest undermines reliability of identification; burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
6 December 1974 |
|
Appellant’s shop‑breaking conviction set aside and substituted with conviction for receiving stolen property due to knowledge inferred from lies and identifying marks.
Criminal law – shop‑breaking and stealing – admissibility of confession to police sergeant major – inference from false statements – receiving stolen property (s.311(1)).
|
6 December 1974 |
|
Conviction for shop-breaking substituted to receiving stolen property where marked goods in appellant’s possession showed knowledge.
* Criminal law – Shop-breaking and stealing – sufficiency of evidence for participation in break-in versus receiving stolen property
* Evidence – Admissibility of confessions made to police officers – such confessions inadmissible
* Receiving stolen property – inference of knowledge from possession of marked goods and inconsistent statements
|
6 December 1974 |
|
Conviction set aside for insufficient evidence and unreliable accomplice testimony; failure to raise alarm not proof of guilt.
Criminal law – sufficiency of evidence; accomplice evidence requiring caution and corroboration; inferences from failure to raise alarm or name suspects; misdirection in assessment of defence witness testimony.
|
6 December 1974 |
|
Several false‑pretence convictions quashed for insufficient evidence; theft affirmed and all sentences reduced to concurrent 12 months.
* Criminal law – Obtaining by false pretences – necessity of witness evidence to support convictions based on receipts – handwriting comparison inconclusive. * Criminal law – Theft by finding – accountable documents and knowledge of ownership. * Criminal procedure – Conviction unsupported by charge sheet or absent witness testimony liable to be quashed. * Sentencing – First offender and low value property warranting leniency; substitution of concurrent reduced sentences.
|
6 December 1974 |
|
Conviction for theft quashed where disputed land ownership required civil determination and the trial court’s site visit was unrecorded.
Criminal law — Theft (s.265) — Disputed ownership of property — Title/boundary disputes to be resolved in civil proceedings — Failure to record or effectuate site visit — Unsafe conviction — Quashing of conviction and refund of fine.
|
3 December 1974 |
|
Theft conviction quashed where ownership of trees was disputed and no proper site inspection or civil resolution of title occurred.
Criminal law – Theft (s.265 Penal Code) – Conviction unsafe where ownership of property in dispute – Title/possession disputes for land/trees are for civil determination – Necessity of site inspection and record where critical to findings of fact.
|
3 December 1974 |
|
Theft conviction quashed where ownership of trees was disputed and the trial court failed to resolve or properly record the locus investigation.
Criminal law – Theft – Element of ownership – Where ownership of land (and items thereon) is disputed the issue is for civil determination; conviction unsafe if title not proved beyond reasonable doubt; importance of recording site visits or factual findings.
|
3 December 1974 |
| November 1974 |
|
|
Convictions based chiefly on uncorroborated child evidence and an unsupported confession were unsafe and are quashed.
* Evidence – Child witness of tender years – testimony need not be legally corroborated but ordinarily requires caution and corroboration is normally sought – trial court must warn itself of danger of convicting on uncorroborated child evidence.
* Evidence – Confession – alleged confession in custody not sufficiently corroborated; independent witness did not support implication of all accused.
* Criminal procedure – voir dire of child witness – trial court should briefly record investigation into child’s understanding of an oath for appellate review.
* Appeal – convictions unsafe where reliance on uncorroborated child evidence and procedural safeguards omitted; convictions and sentences quashed.
|
8 November 1974 |
|
Convictions based mainly on an uncorroborated child witness and an unsupported confession were quashed as unsafe.
Criminal law – Evidence of child witness – witness of tender years; corroboration desirable though not legally mandatory; caution and judicial warning required; alleged confession in custody by private arresting agent lacking independent corroboration; necessity to record voir dire inquiry regarding child’s understanding of oath.
|
8 November 1974 |
|
Affiliation proven by handwriting and conduct; maintenance order upheld from date of birth and applicant awarded costs.
* Affiliation (paternity) — determination on balance of probabilities — use of handwritten letters and admitted document as corroborative evidence of paternity. * Evidence — handwriting comparison and admissions — credibility and weight. * Maintenance — effective date generally the child's date of birth. * Expenses incidental to birth — require evidential basis. * Costs — discretionary award where successful applicant prevails.
|
4 November 1974 |
| October 1974 |
|
|
Appellate court upheld burglary and theft convictions, finding witnesses credible and drunkenness insufficient to negate intent.
* Criminal law – Burglary and stealing – Proof of possession and identification – Credibility of eyewitnesses; * Criminal law – Burglary – Night-time element and timing evidence; * Criminal law – Defences – Voluntary drunkenness and mens rea; * Appeal – Reassessment of credibility and sufficiency of evidence.
|
28 October 1974 |
|
Court upheld vehicle forfeiture, found third‑party ownership claim unreliable, and enhanced sentences for repeat wildlife offences.
Criminal law – unlawful possession of wildlife products – forfeiture of vehicle – ownership disputed by third party – probative value of auction documents and demeanour – procedural omission to hear accused on forfeiture – substantive correctness upheld; Sentence enhancement on appeal for repeat offending.
|
25 October 1974 |
|
Conviction set aside where repudiated accomplice statement lacked corroboration and evidence was insufficient.
Criminal law – sufficiency of evidence – repudiated accomplice statement requiring corroboration – knowledge of stolen property – setting aside conviction for lack of corroboration and insufficient proof.
|
23 October 1974 |
|
Conviction based on an uncorroborated, repudiated accomplice statement is unsafe and set aside.
* Criminal law – sufficiency of evidence – conviction unsafe where based on uncorroborated, repudiated accomplice statement; * Evidence – accomplice testimony requires independent corroboration; * Stolen property – proof of knowledge/possession required for conviction; * Appellate review – setting aside convictions unsupported by evidence.
|
23 October 1974 |
|
Appeal dismissed because appellant failed to prove title amid conflicting evidence and weak witness credibility.
Land law – title and possession; burden of proof in competing claims; assessment of witness credibility and conflicts in chain of title; adverse possession/long user not established.
|
22 October 1974 |
|
Appellant convicted for personation, obtaining by false pretences, and uttering false documents; appellate court substituted convictions and affirmed sentences.
Criminal law – personation of a public officer (s.100(2)) – obtaining money by false pretences (s.302) – uttering false documents (s.342) – appellate substitution of convictions – improper tendering of exhibits by prosecutor but convictions sustainable.
|
21 October 1974 |
| September 1974 |
|
|
Appeal allowed: lower courts misweighed evidence and claimant failed to prove title or adverse possession.
Land law - disputed ownership of small parcel; burden and evaluation of oral evidence; credibility of witnesses; adverse possession insufficient; government ownership of land not a substitute for evidence-based findings.
|
26 September 1974 |
|
Conviction for unlawful wounding upheld; provocation and minor injury rendered 18‑month sentence excessive, resulting in immediate release.
* Criminal law – Unlawful wounding (s.228(1)) – Provocation does not justify cutting with a weapon but may mitigate sentence. * Sentencing – Considerations: seriousness of injury, weapon used, provocation, intoxication, time served. * Appeal – reduction/substitution of excessive custodial sentence to effect immediate release.
|
20 September 1974 |
|
Provocation does not excuse unlawful wounding, but may mitigate sentence; 18‑month term reduced to immediate release.
Criminal law – Unlawful wounding (s.228(1) Penal Code) – Provocation not a defence but may mitigate sentence – Sentence discretion; use of weapon and injury severity relevant to sentencing.
|
20 September 1974 |
|
Fraudulent false accounting quashed for lack of intent; forgery and theft convictions and sentences upheld.
Criminal law – Fraudulent false accounting – intent to defraud required under s.317(c) – omission to record not sufficient without proof of intent; Forgery – false issue/return vouchers dated or sequenced to mislead investigators establishes intent to deceive; Theft by public servant – failure to retain/produce items and inconsistent reports can support conviction.
|
13 September 1974 |
|
Presence with the possessor of stolen goods in a vehicle, without further evidence, cannot sustain convictions for breaking and stealing.
Criminal law – evidence – ownership admission by one accused – whether admission implicates co-accused; presence in vehicle and proximity to stolen goods insufficient to prove participation in breaking and stealing.
|
11 September 1974 |
|
A co‑accused's admission and mere presence with stolen goods do not suffice to convict other occupants without further incriminating evidence.
* Criminal law – breaking and stealing – sufficiency of evidence to convict co-occupants of a vehicle found with stolen goods.
* Criminal evidence – admission by co-accused – limits on using one accused’s admission to convict others.
* Circumstantial/presence evidence – mere presence with stolen property at night is insufficient without further incriminating proof.
* Appellate review – quashing convictions where linkage to the offence is equivocal or unsupported.
|
11 September 1974 |
|
Conviction quashed where witness inconsistencies and missing cashier acknowledgements rendered theft proof inadequate.
Criminal law – Theft by public servant – Sufficiency of evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt; Credibility and critical analysis of witness testimony; Documentary practice in revenue collection (cashier's written acknowledgement); Incomplete banking/cheque evidence undermining modus operandi.
|
6 September 1974 |
| August 1974 |
|
|
Conviction quashed where identification and evidence were insufficient and the trial judge was only "inclined to believe" guilt.
* Criminal law – robbery with violence – identification evidence – inadequate opportunity and uncertain identification not sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. * Criminal procedure – standard of proof – trial judge’s "inclined to believe" is legally insufficient; must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. * Evidence – possession of suspected weapon may be merely suggestive and not conclusive without corroboration.
|
30 August 1974 |
|
A court cannot impose below-statutory-minimum sentences for corruption offences excluded from section 6(1) discretion.
* Criminal law – Corruption – Offence under s.3(2) Prevention of Corruption Act – Minimum sentence mandatory.
* Sentencing – Minimum Sentences Act, 1972 – s.6(1) (as amended) discretionary relief and s.6(3) exclusion of corruption offences.
* Statutory interpretation – amendment by Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1973 – limits on judicial discretion to depart from minimum sentences.
* Relief – mitigating circumstances cannot override statutory prohibition; remission lies with the Executive.
|
23 August 1974 |
|
Acquitted of murder; convicted for reckless/negligent handling of a service firearm and given a suspended sentence.
Criminal law – homicide – whether prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused intentionally fired fatal shot – circumstantial and ballistic evidence – negligent handling/storage of service firearm – conviction for reckless act and suspended sentence.
|
8 August 1974 |
| July 1974 |
|
|
Under Maasai custom, an heir may sue to claim children born during a subsisting marriage as his deceased father’s children; appeal dismissed.
Customary law (Maasai) – legitimacy and paternity – children born during subsisting marriage treated as husband’s children; Succession and locus standi – heir may sue to vindicate deceased’s rights upon attaining majority; Effect of minority and subsequent marriage on customary claims.
|
31 July 1974 |
|
A free widow not inherited cannot ground a brother's claim for adultery damages against her partner.
Customary law – widow's status – free widow versus inherited wife – consent required for inheritance – entitlement to claim adultery damages depends on widow being a wife under customary law; a free widow cannot give rise to a brother's claim for damages.
|
24 July 1974 |
|
Appellant must seek any surplus from the court broker; respondent not liable and appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – execution of decree – sale in execution – surplus proceeds – liability of court broker versus purchaser/claimant – admissibility of older evidence – appeal dismissed.
|
9 July 1974 |
|
Trial court erred awarding customary payments to third parties; maintenance order upheld and appeal dismissed.
* Family law – maintenance – proper relief is maintenance to the spouse/child, not payment to third parties; customary payments to parents cannot substitute for maintenance if repugnant to justice. * Customary law – repugnancy principle – tribal/customary practices inconsistent with justice cannot be enforced. * Civil procedure – trial court exceeded pleadings by deciding custody/legitimation issues not before it. * Law of Marriage Act 1971 – not applicable retroactively to disputes arising before its enactment.
|
5 July 1974 |
|
The court dismissed a maintenance appeal for lack of evidence and inconsistency between alleged intercourse date and normal gestation.
Family law – Paternity and maintenance – Presumption of putative paternity under Rules 183–184 Law of Persons (G.N. 279/1963) – Sufficiency of evidence; Medical/gestation timing – compatibility of alleged intercourse date with date of birth; Evidentiary weight of claimed resumed menstruation/clinical treatment.
|
2 July 1974 |
| June 1974 |
|
|
Appellate court set aside theft conviction where prosecution evidence was insufficient and relied on hearsay by co-accused.
Criminal law – Theft from motor vehicle; sufficiency of evidence; inadmissible hearsay statements by co-accused; duty to acquit at close of prosecution case; unsafe conviction set aside.
|
14 June 1974 |
|
Conviction for theft set aside where prosecution relied on hearsay and evidence was insufficient to call appellant to defence.
Criminal law – Theft from a motor vehicle – Sufficiency of prosecution evidence to call accused to defence – Improper reliance on hearsay statements by co-accused to police – Conviction set aside.
|
14 June 1974 |
|
Circumstantial evidence and inadmissible police confession insufficient to sustain conviction for housebreaking and stealing; conviction quashed.
Criminal law – Housebreaking and stealing – Circumstantial evidence: disappearance and denial – insufficiency to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; Confession to police corporal inadmissible; Appeal — quashing unsafe conviction.
|
7 June 1974 |
|
Conviction quashed where inadmissible police confession and circumstantial evidence only raised suspicion, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – house breaking and stealing – confession to police below requisite rank inadmissible – circumstantial evidence and unexplained disappearance insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – conviction quashed.
|
7 June 1974 |
|
Appellate court quashed conviction where doubt remained that the accused received the specific deposited funds.
* Criminal law – Theft by servant – Whether accused received specific deposit – Credibility of witnesses and need for corroboration where witness has an interest – Trial judge's factual findings and benefit of doubt.
|
7 June 1974 |
|
Conviction for stealing by servant quashed where prosecution failed to prove appellant received the specific deposit beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Theft by servant – Proof required that accused received specific deposit – credibility and corroboration of co‑worker witness with interest. * Evidence – Witness with potential interest requires caution; weak corroboration insufficient; benefit of doubt.
|
7 June 1974 |
|
Appeal dismissed: appellate court properly accepted respondent's evidence and ordered additional evidence in paternity/maintenance suit.
* Family law – maintenance – suit against putative father for child born out of wedlock – admissibility and sufficiency of complainant's and witnesses' evidence.
* Procedure – appeal – ordering of additional evidence by appellate court – appellate discretion to receive further evidence.
* Evidence – application of para. 184, Law of Persons – evidence before the court sufficient to engage statutory provision.
* Distinction – maintenance of illegitimate child versus breach of promise to marry; no requirement to call parents to prove engagement in paternity/maintenance suits.
|
4 June 1974 |
| May 1974 |
|
|
Identification in darkness and late disclosure of material evidence rendered the convictions unsafe; they were set aside.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Recognition in darkness and from a distance – Caution required when identification made under poor viewing conditions.
* Criminal procedure – Safety of conviction – Late disclosure of material evidence by prosecution witness undermines reliability of case.
* Burglary and stealing – Convictions unsafe where primary identification is doubtful and corroborative evidence is belated or unreliable.
|
31 May 1974 |
|
Convictions for stealing by agent set aside due to insufficient proof, unreliable witness testimony, and misframed charges.
* Criminal law – Theft by agent – Proper framing of charges where deposits were made to a partnership rather than an individual. * Evidence – Burden of proof – necessity of particulars and documentary proof for asserted cash totals. * Evidence – Credibility – interest and inconsistency of prosecution witnesses. * Criminal appeals – convictions set aside where evidence is insufficient and raises reasonable doubt.
|
24 May 1974 |
|
The applicant's appeal against bail was dismissed; the court tightened bail conditions, finding remand no longer just.
* Criminal law – Bail – exercise of judicial discretion – paramount consideration is the interest of justice balancing individual liberty and public protection. * Serious offences – alleged use of dangerous weapon and need for time to investigate may justify remand. * Evidence to resist bail – prosecution’s representations and investigative needs considered; affidavit/swearing of evidence discussed. * Procedural irregularity – joint verbatim recording of accuseds' statements undermines record fidelity. * Variation of bail – court can dismiss appeal yet tighten bail conditions when remand becomes unjust.
|
2 May 1974 |