|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2002 |
|
|
Conviction quashed where trial court ignored defence witnesses and relied on unreliable voice identification evidence.
Criminal law – identification by voice; reliability of identification evidence; duty to consider defence witnesses and alibi evidence; unsafe conviction; appellate intervention.
|
17 December 2002 |
|
Appeal allowed: charge under section 306 did not fit the facts; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
Criminal law — Charge particulars — Correspondence with statutory offence (s.306 Penal Code); Conspiracy by deceit — elements; Conviction unsafe where evidence and charge do not establish statutory offence; Appeal — quashing conviction and setting aside sentence.
|
17 December 2002 |
|
Appellant’s appeal against conviction for theft by a village officer dismissed: evidence of receipt and failure to account upheld.
Penal law – s.270 (stealing by a public servant) – sufficiency of evidence – receipt books and meeting minutes as proof of receipt – adequacy of accounting by accused – village authority/officials and status vis-à-vis local government – appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
|
17 December 2002 |
|
Identification and confession upheld but offence reclassified from armed robbery to burglary; sentence reduced to ten years.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Strategic position and available light can render visual identification reliable; Confession and corroboration – admissions to villagers and written police statement corroborative; Distinction between armed robbery and burglary – absence of evidence of weapons precludes conviction for armed robbery; Sentencing – revisional substitution of conviction and sentence under sections 372 & 373 of Criminal Procedure Act.
|
17 December 2002 |
|
Identification and admissions were reliable but absence of evidence of arms/violence required substituting armed robbery with burglary and reducing sentence.
* Criminal law – Evidence – visual identification – reliability where complainant observed intruders by light from a close strategic position. * Criminal law – Admissions – confession to villagers and written statement to police as corroborative evidence. * Criminal law – Distinction between armed robbery and burglary – necessity to prove use or threat of arms/violence for armed robbery. * Appeals/Revisions – substitution of conviction and sentence where material element of charged offence not proved.
|
17 December 2002 |
|
The applicants' sexual-offence convictions were quashed for material contradictions and lack of positive identification.
* Criminal law – Sexual offences – Proof of identity – Positive identification required to convict where complainant was unconscious. * Evidence – Contradictions and inconsistencies – Material discrepancies can undermine prosecution case. * Evidence – Circumstantial evidence and mere presence – Presence with complainant insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. * Principle – Benefit of the doubt must be given where prosecution fails to prove guilt clearly.
|
13 December 2002 |
|
Identification by fellow villagers sustained; the appellant’s appeal against conviction and 30-year sentence dismissed.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification evidence – reliability where witnesses are fellow villagers, lamp/torchlight and voice identification corroborated by co-accused's admission. * Criminal procedure – Compliance with section 31 – procedural compliance established. * Appeal – sufficiency of evidence – positive, consistent identification can sustain conviction despite absence of recovered articles.
|
11 December 2002 |
|
|
11 December 2002 |
|
Convictions for reckless driving, failure to report and driving without licence upheld; custodial sentences replaced by fines.
* Road Traffic offences – reckless driving; failure to report an accident; driving without a licence – sufficiency of prosecution evidence. * Criminal procedure – part-heard trial after accused absconding/jumping bail – impact on fairness. * Sentencing – substitution of custodial sentences with fines and concurrent default terms; first-offender and statutory alternatives. * Licence cancellation – validity of cancellation order where licence was seized by police.
|
11 December 2002 |
|
Court allowed extension of time where applicant diligently sought decree; submissions by advocate employed at Legal Aid Clinic were admissible.
Civil procedure – Enlargement of time – Good cause – diligent pursuit of certified copies of judgment and decree; delay attributable to court’s failure to supply decree – Legal Aid Clinic submissions by employed advocate admissible – Costs in the cause.
|
3 December 2002 |
| November 2002 |
|
|
Applicant had no cause of action against the District Council; purchase permit for the public vehicle was withdrawn.
Public property – ownership and possession of government vehicle; Certificate/permit of allocation – validity and lawful withdrawal; Cause of action – claim against user versus owner; Administrative correspondence as evidence of revocation; Proper defendant and available remedy against true owner.
|
25 November 2002 |
|
Plaintiff cannot claim delivery of a government vehicle from the council; remedy lies against the vehicle’s owner (Central Government).
Public property – allocation certificate to purchase vehicle – withdrawal of allocation – effect on title and remedy – distinction between owner and possessor – no cause of action against district council.
|
25 November 2002 |
|
Circumstantial evidence must exclude all reasonable alternative hypotheses before supporting a conviction; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
* Criminal law – Theft – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Necessity to exclude all reasonable alternative hypotheses before drawing inference of guilt. * Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt; co‑existing circumstances may create reasonable doubt. * Criminal procedure – Appeal – appellate intervention where conviction is against weight of evidence.
|
12 November 2002 |
| October 2002 |
|
|
Court struck out suit for lack of jurisdiction, finding the Housing Tribunal the proper forum for a landlord–tenant dispute.
Jurisdiction — Landlord–tenant relationship — Suit properly triable before Regional Housing Tribunal — Special forum doctrine — Civil court will not normally entertain matters committed to a specialized forum — Pleadings disclosing tenancy — Strike out for lack of appropriate forum.
|
29 October 2002 |
|
The court held the applicant's dispute is a landlord–tenant matter for the Regional Housing Tribunal and struck out the suit.
Land law – jurisdiction – landlord–tenant disputes – Regional Housing Tribunal is the appropriate forum; specialized forum doctrine; plaint discloses lease/landlord–tenant relationship; suit struck out for want of jurisdiction.
|
29 October 2002 |
|
A dispute founded on terms of a lease is for the Housing Tribunal; the High Court struck out the suit for lack of proper forum.
* Civil procedure – Jurisdiction – landlord/tenant disputes – Appropriate forum: Housing/Regional Tribunal under Rent Restriction Act versus civil courts. * Special forum principle – where legislature creates a specialised tribunal, civil courts should decline jurisdiction unless no adequate remedy exists there. * Pleadings – substance of plaint and written agreement may determine forum for dispute.
|
29 October 2002 |
|
Court reduced an excessive claimed instruction fee and taxed the bill of costs at shs 183,350, striking off the remainder.
* Taxation of costs – assessment of reasonableness of instruction fees – application of prescribed scale (GN 515) – disallowance/reduction where entries do not tally with court record.
|
24 October 2002 |
|
Conviction quashed because the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction where the offence was committed outside its district.
Criminal procedure – Territorial jurisdiction – Trial held outside district where offence occurred – Trial court lacked jurisdiction; conviction quashed.
|
17 October 2002 |
|
Order 1 Rule 10(2) strike-out application dismissed; preliminary objection belongs in pleadings or an Order VII Rule 11 rejection.
Civil procedure – Order 1 Rule 10(2) – removal/substitution of parties – limited to improper joinder – where defendant is sole party, application inappropriate; preliminary objections to plaint should be raised in defence or by Order VII Rule 11 – application dismissed with costs.
|
9 October 2002 |
|
Order 1 Rule 10(2) does not permit a sole defendant’s removal; objections belong in the main suit.
Civil procedure — Order 1 Rule 10(2) — removal or substitution of parties — limited to wrongly joined parties — sole defendant cannot be removed under O.1 r.10(2); preliminary objections to the plaint should be raised in the main suit; statutory vesting of liabilities issue to be determined in main proceedings.
|
9 October 2002 |
|
Convictions affirmed, but thirty-year prison sentences unlawful for a juvenile first offender; substituted with corporal punishment and compensation.
* Criminal law – conviction for rape and unnatural offence – evidence: complainant’s testimony, PF3 and caution statement as corroboration – credibility of defence rejected
* Sentencing – juvenile/young offender (boy of 18 or less) and first offender – statutory requirement for corporal punishment; imprisonment unlawful
* Appeal – conviction upheld; sentence set aside and substituted with corporal punishment and compensation
|
8 October 2002 |
| September 2002 |
|
|
Appeal allowed where contradictions in prosecution evidence and failure to consider accused’s defence rendered conviction unsafe.
Criminal law – Rape – Credibility of prosecution witnesses – Material contradictions in reporting and arrest dates – Trial court’s failure to consider accused’s defence of animus/grudges and prior complaints – Unsafe conviction.
|
30 September 2002 |
|
Appeal allowed: convictions quashed due to unlawful in‑absence procedure and unsafe, defective identification parade evidence.
Criminal procedure – proceeding in absence (s.226 CPA) – prerequisites in ss.228–229 – fresh trial before different magistrate; Identification evidence – identification parades – adequacy of police register and procedure – duplicate parades and failure to record which witness identified which suspect – effect on reliability of identification; Appeal – unsafe conviction – quash and set aside sentence.
|
16 September 2002 |
|
Appeals allowed: convictions and sentences quashed where fresh hearing procedures and identification-parade safeguards were not observed.
* Criminal procedure – validity of convictions after ‘fresh’ hearing where accused absconded – application of s.226 Criminal Procedure Act. * Evidence – identification parade – requirement to record which witness identified which suspect, presence of assisting officers, prevention of witness communication and reasons for duplicate parades. * Evidence – reliability of nighttime identification – proof of lighting, distance, duration and prior familiarity. * Convictions in respect of deceased accused – necessity to withdraw charge; conviction defective.
|
16 September 2002 |
| 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 |
|
|
21 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
| June 2002 |
|
|
Appeal struck out because the High Court was functus officio after dismissing the earlier appeal.
Civil procedure — functus officio — effect of prior dismissal of an appeal; leave to appeal out of time; proper remedy is appeal to higher court, not re-litigation or review in same court.
|
21 June 2002 |
|
Execution stayed pending determination of the respondent’s application for stay of execution.
Execution — Stay of execution — Pending application for stay of execution and for extension of time to file notice of appeal — Prudential refusal to execute pending determination — No order as to costs.
|
21 June 2002 |
|
Application for revision dismissed as time‑barred; time‑to‑obtain‑copy exclusion does not apply to revision applications.
* Civil procedure — revision — application to call for and examine lower court record — time‑barred if not filed within limitation period under Law of Limitation Act (item 21). * Limitation — exclusion of time spent obtaining copy applies to appeals/review, not to revision applications. * Procedural requirement — where chamber summons prays for calling for record, applicant need not first obtain copy before filing.
|
21 June 2002 |
|
Respondent lacked locus standi to object to an intended marriage; District Court proceedings quashed and remitted for retrial.
Law of Marriage Act – objection to intended marriage – requirement that court ensure attendance of the parties to the intended marriage and the objector – locus standi – failure to secure attendance renders proceedings a nullity – quash and remit for trial de novo – costs each party.
|
18 June 2002 |
|
The accused convicted of attempted murder based on grievous injuries, medical evidence, and credible eyewitnesses.
Criminal law – Attempted murder (s.211(1) Penal Code) – Whether grievous injuries and medical evidence establish malice aforethought – s.200(a) definition of malice aforethought – assessment of credibility and contradictions in accused’s defence.
|
13 June 2002 |
| May 2002 |
|
|
Appellate court upheld acquittal for malicious damage due to insufficiency of evidence.
* Criminal law – Malicious damage to property (s.326(1) Penal Code) – Sufficiency of evidence – Acquittal upheld where prosecution failed to adduce evidence to support conviction; appellate court declines to disturb findings of lower courts.
|
14 May 2002 |
|
Whether a divorced couple’s later association was a valid remarriage and whether the respondent deserved a share of subsequently acquired assets.
* Family law – remarriage after divorce – Law of Marriage Act 1971 does not bar subsequent marriages; formal statutory requirements must be proved for validity. * Family/property – division of assets – claims in respect of assets acquired after an earlier divorce (or substantially improved thereafter) may be valid. * Evidence – adequacy of proof of marriage formalities and of party’s contribution to property acquisition or improvement.
|
14 May 2002 |
| March 2002 |
|
|
Appellate court quashed lower court judgment for failure to join the Government, lack of proof of Village Council’s corporate capacity, and procedural defects.
* Land law – allocation by Land Office – necessity of joining Government/Attorney General where title depends on official allocation. * Corporate capacity – Village Council’s ability to sue/be sued depends on proof of registration, certificate of incorporation and Gazette publication. * Civil procedure – validity of judgment – judgment must be written and signed by the presiding judge/magistrate. * Remedy – quashing of proceedings and judgment where procedural and jurisdictional defects materially affect outcome.
|
15 March 2002 |
|
Appeal dismissed where unresolved land ownership dispute undermined proof of theft.
Criminal law – Theft – Proof of ownership – Unresolved dispute over land ownership undermines prosecution’s case – Acquittal upheld on appeal.
|
13 March 2002 |
|
The High Court dismissed an appeal because the appellant must first seek restoration in the District Court after his appeal was struck out for non‑appearance.
* Civil procedure – Appeal procedure – Appeals from Primary Court – Requirement to proceed via District Court as intermediate appellate forum before High Court entertains further appeal.
* Civil procedure – Striking out for want of prosecution – Appellant’s remedy is to apply to the District Court to restore the appeal where good cause for non‑appearance is shown.
* Appellate jurisdiction – High Court as second appellate court – lacks jurisdiction to hear matters bypassing the District Court.
|
13 March 2002 |
|
Whether issuing a dishonoured cheque and failing to make good within eight days constitutes kite‑flying under section 332(B).
* Criminal law – Cheques – "Kite‑flying" (s.332(B) Penal Code) – Elements: issuance of cheque, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of notice, failure to make good – proof required to convict.
|
11 March 2002 |
|
Court held suspension without an adequate hearing unlawful and struck down outdated fixed legal‑aid fees as violating the right to just remuneration.
Civil procedure – cross‑appeal timing under Rule 87(2); Administrative law – interim suspension of advocate under s.22(2) and right to audi alteram partem; Constitutional law – fair hearing (Article 13(6)(a)) and just remuneration (Article 23(2)); Remedies – striking out unconstitutional numerical limits while preserving statute’s operative purpose; Separation of powers – limits on s.13(2)(a) referral where it would impede judicial enforcement of fundamental rights.
|
5 March 2002 |
|
Appellants' proximity, admissions and flight proved unlawful possession; statutory minimum twenty‑year sentence applied and imposed.
* Wildlife law – unlawful possession of government trophy – possession may be inferred from proximity, admissions and flight on discovery.
* Evidence – credibility – minor inconsistencies between prosecution witnesses not necessarily material.
* Sentencing – mandatory minimum 20 years for possession of scheduled animals where value exceeds statutory threshold; appellate power to enhance sentence even without cross‑appeal.
|
5 March 2002 |
|
Absence of a s.192 preliminary hearing is not fatal; convictions upheld and sentence increased to the statutory minimum for amount stolen.
Criminal law – fraudulent false accounting and stealing by servant – evidential sufficiency of bank documents and teller testimony; admissible admissions by accused; preliminary hearing under s.192 C.P.A. not jurisdictional; handwriting expert not always necessary; sentences enhanced to meet Minimum Sentences Act.
|
5 March 2002 |
|
Omission of a preliminary hearing is not fatal; convictions sustained and sentence increased to statutory minimum.
Criminal law — section 192 Criminal Procedure Act — preliminary hearing; Evidence — documentary proof, receipt/pay-in slip, teller comparison, no necessity for handwriting expert where circumstantial and testimonial evidence proves authorship; Fraudulent false accounting and stealing by servant — sufficiency of prosecution proof; Sentencing — Minimum Sentences Act statutory minimum and appellate enhancement.
|
5 March 2002 |
|
Applicants failed to prove interest or possession of attached land at the date of attachment; objection dismissed.
Civil procedure – Attachment – Objection to attachment – Burden of proof on objector under Order 21 Rule 58 to show interest or possession at date of attachment; family land disputes and customary transfer formalities; sufficiency of evidence to set aside execution.
|
1 March 2002 |
|
|
1 March 2002 |