|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2003 |
|
|
Court granted leave to file appeal out of time, finding applicant’s ignorance and imprisonment excused the delay.
Appellate procedure – Section 11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – leave to file Notice of Appeal out of time; sufficient cause – ignorance of law, imprisonment and sustained efforts; liberal interpretation of time exceptions; suo motu extension for leave or certificate to enable final determination at Court of Appeal.
|
4 December 2003 |
|
Failure to give statutory 90‑day notice to the relevant minister and instituting a representative suit without prior leave rendered the proceedings incompetent.
* Government Proceedings Act s.6(2) – mandatory 90-day notice to Minister/Department/officer concerned; service on Attorney General alone insufficient.
* Civil Procedure Code Order I r.8 – representative suits require prior leave of court; suits instituted without leave are incompetent and liable to be struck out.
* Procedural compliance – failure to issue statutory notice and failure to obtain leave renders proceedings unsustainable.
|
4 December 2003 |
|
Representative suits require prior court leave and statutory 90‑day notice to the relevant Minister; failure to comply renders the suit incompetent.
Government proceedings – section 6(2) Government Proceedings Act – mandatory 90‑day notice to Minister/department with copy to Attorney General; Civil procedure – Order I Rule 8 – representative suits require prior leave of court; instituting representative suit without leave is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
4 December 2003 |
|
Failure to serve the statutory 90‑day notice on the relevant Minister and instituting a representative suit without prior leave rendered the proceedings incompetent.
* Government Proceedings Act s.6(2) — mandatory 90-day notice — must be served on the Minister/department concerned; copy to Attorney General only — service on Attorney General alone insufficient.
* Civil Procedure Code, Order I Rule 8 — representative suits — leave of court must be obtained prior to instituting representative proceedings; failure to obtain leave renders suit incompetent and liable to be struck out.
* Procedural compliance — noncompliance with mandatory notice and leave requirements leads to dismissal of suit and related application.
|
4 December 2003 |
|
Failure to give statutory 90‑day notice to the relevant Minister and instituting a representative suit without prior leave renders both proceedings incompetent.
Government proceedings – section 6(2) – mandatory 90‑day pre‑action notice to Minister/department (copy to Attorney General) – service on Attorney General only insufficient; Civil procedure – Order I Rule 8 – representative suits require prior leave of court – instituting representative suit without leave is incompetent and must be struck out.
|
4 December 2003 |
| November 2003 |
|
|
Applicant’s bona fide ignorance and imprisonment constituted sufficient cause to grant leave to file a Notice of Appeal out of time.
* Appellate procedure – leave to appeal out of time – sufficient cause – ignorance, imprisonment and sustained attempts to pursue remedies accepted as sufficient cause.
* Appellate Jurisdiction Act – s.11(1) (leave to file notice of appeal) and s.14(1) (extension of time) – discretionary relief and liberal interpretation of exceptions to time limits.
* Court’s inherent/discretionary powers – suo motu extension of time for application for leave to appeal or certificate of fitness to appeal.
|
21 November 2003 |
|
|
20 November 2003 |
|
Suit struck out for failure to give statutory 90‑day notice and for non‑joinder of the Attorney General; injunction also struck out.
* Government Proceedings Act – statutory notice – requirement to give not less than 90 days' notice before instituting suit against government – non-compliance renders suit premature and incompetent.
* Joinder and parties – suits against government must be brought against the Attorney General; officers or ministries may be joined only if Attorney General is made a defendant.
* Civil procedure – interim injunctions – application for temporary injunction inadmissible where substantive suit is not properly instituted or has been struck out.
|
17 November 2003 |
|
Convicting and sentencing an accused without hearing his application violated the right to be heard; conviction set aside and accused released.
* Criminal procedure — conviction in absence — necessity to hear accused's application to cross‑examine and defend before pronouncing judgment; * Natural justice — right to be heard (s.13(6)(a) Constitution) — condemnation unheard voids proceedings; * Remedy — setting aside conviction and sentence; release where substantial sentence already served; civil action advised for monetary recovery.
|
6 November 2003 |
|
Continuing trespass suspends limitation; dubious allocation prevents title by long occupation; unproven damages are set aside.
Property law – trespass – continuing trespass suspends limitation; Limitation Act – recovery of land v. tort of trespass; Possession and title – long occupation does not confer ownership where allocation is dubious; Evidence – special damages require strict proof; Civil procedure – decree must agree with judgment.
|
4 November 2003 |
| October 2003 |
|
|
A beneficiary may validly sell his inherited share and convey title despite absence of probate or appointment of an administrator.
Succession and land sale – beneficiary’s right to sell inherited share; effect of absence of probate or administrator on validity of sale; executor de son tort inapplicable; purchaser’s acquisition of lawful title; joint ownership disbanded by heirs’ distribution.
|
31 October 2003 |
|
Heir’s sale of his share in a deceased’s estate valid despite no probate; purchaser declared lawful owner.
Land law – sale by heir of deceased’s estate; capacity and title to sell despite lack of probate; executor de son tort inapplicable; informal distribution and co-heirs’ consent.
|
31 October 2003 |
|
Appeal allowed: ex parte judgment and eviction quashed for improper service, procedural irregularities and denial of fair hearing.
Civil procedure — Ex parte judgment — setting aside — time limitation and when time runs (awareness) — adequacy of service of process — procedural fairness and judicial bias — execution of judgment and eviction — remedy: quashing and rehearing inter partes.
|
30 October 2003 |
|
Employer who refuses ministerial reinstatement must pay statutory compensation under section 40A(5)(b), not full claimed back-pay and allowances.
Employment law – enforcement of ministerial reinstatement order – refusal to comply attracts statutory compensation under s.40A(5)(b) Security of Employment Act – scope of remedies (no automatic award of full back wages and allowances) – failure to prosecute judicial review undermines delay in compliance.
|
29 October 2003 |
|
Employer refusing Ministerial reinstatement order must pay statutory compensation including twelve months’ wages; other allowance claims denied.
Labour law – enforcement of Ministerial reinstatement order – employer’s refusal – section 40A(5)(b) Security of Employment Act 1964 (as amended) – liability to statutory compensation plus twelve months’ wages – extraneous allowance claims disallowed.
|
29 October 2003 |
|
Appellate court upheld concurrent factual findings on land ownership, deferring to trial credibility findings and locus visit.
* Land law – ownership dispute over 1½ acre – factual findings and credibility of witnesses – appellate review limited where findings are not manifestly unreasonable. * Evidence – locus in quo inspection supports trial court credibility assessments. * Civil procedure – appellate judgment compliance with Rule 16 (GN 312/64).
|
29 October 2003 |
|
Appeal dismissed where evidence proved appellant had no lawful right to possession of the disputed land.
Criminal appeal — unlawful possession of land (s.86 Penal Code) — sufficiency of evidence to prove lack of lawful right — failure to prosecute appeal; dismissal of appeal on merits.
|
29 October 2003 |
|
|
29 October 2003 |
|
Appellate court set aside dismissals and time‑bar finding, holding limitation runs from awareness and ordering merits hearing.
Civil procedure – dismissal for want of prosecution – dismissal after short absence unjustified; Limitation Act (First Schedule item 21) – 60 days from decision; computation runs from awareness of judgment; court must compute limitation not assume; separate applications must be dealt with on their own merits; right to be heard before dismissal.
|
28 October 2003 |
|
Appeal dismissed where jurisdictional objection was improperly raised in affidavit and bias complaint was vague.
* Civil procedure – Jurisdictional objection – preliminary point of objection must be properly raised (Notice of Objection) not merely by affidavit – affidavit containing objection defective (see Uganda v Commissioner of Prisons Ex parte Matovu). * Civil procedure – Stay of proceedings – allegation of bias must be clearly pleaded and not vague. * Appeal – vagueness and procedural defects may render grounds untenable; appeal dismissed with costs.
|
28 October 2003 |
|
Conviction under s383 quashed where required knowledge absent, judgment defective and evidence inadequate.
Criminal law — Neglect to prevent an offence (s383 Penal Code) — knowledge element required — conviction cannot rest on speculation; Judgment formal requirements (s312 CPA) — points for determination, decision and reasons; Insufficient evidence — conviction quashed; Excessive sentence set aside.
|
2 October 2003 |
|
Conviction for neglect to prevent a felony quashed for lack of proof of knowledge and defective judgment.
Criminal law – s.383 Penal Code – neglect to prevent a felony – knowledge element; criminal procedure – s.312(1) CPA – required contents of a judgment (points of determination, decision and reasons); conviction cannot rest on speculation; appellate relief where prosecution fails to prove case beyond reasonable doubt.
|
2 October 2003 |
| September 2003 |
|
|
Time to appeal runs from receipt of certified copies; failure to exclude that period makes a time-bar dismissal erroneous.
Magistrates Courts Act – appeals from Primary Court to District Court must be filed within statutory period; Law of Limitation s.19(2) – time to obtain certified copies of proceedings and judgment excluded from computation of limitation; where certified copies are supplied later, limitation runs from that supply date – dismissal for being time-barred without excluding that period is erroneous.
|
30 September 2003 |
|
Limitation for appeals runs from supply of certified copies; failure to account for that period renders dismissal as time-barred erroneous.
Magistrates Courts Act and Law of Limitation Act – computation of limitation for appeals – period to obtain certified copies excluded from limitation – appeal time runs from supply of certified copies; procedural requirement of attaching judgment to petition of appeal considered in context.
|
30 September 2003 |
|
|
30 September 2003 |
|
|
30 September 2003 |
|
Conviction in absentia must be set aside or remitted under section 226(2) to afford the accused opportunity to be heard; time served deducted if reconvicted.
* Criminal procedure – conviction in absence – Section 226(2) Criminal Procedure Act 1985 – setting aside conviction entered in absence where absence due to causes beyond accused's control and accused has probable defence.
* Right to be heard – fundamental principle – accused on rearrest must be afforded opportunity to present defence.
* Remittal – appellate court may remit case to trial court for compliance with s226(2).
* Sentence calculation – deduction of time already served if convicted after rehearing.
|
29 September 2003 |
|
Court overruled objections and held temporary injunction to restrain execution steps lawful and properly founded in law.
Civil procedure — temporary injunction — Order XXXVII(1)(a) — injunction to restrain steps in execution (application for proclamation of sale) permissible; Constitutional law — Article 13 — access to courts and fair hearing not infringed by interim negative relief; Civil procedure — Order XXI Rule 62 — findings in objection proceedings not conclusive; estoppel inapplicable; Affidavit — Order VI Rule 15 — verification and attestation required and satisfied; Joinder — judgment debtor not necessarily a necessary party; Jurisdiction — High Court competent where subject value exceeds district court limits.
|
19 September 2003 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction unsafe due to hearsay, missing investigative witnesses, unproven cautioned statement and procedural irregularities.
Criminal law Theft; sufficiency of evidence; inadmissible/unreliable hearsay where makers not called; failure to call investigating witnesses; unproven cautioned/confession statement where maker not called; procedural irregularity in proceeding with defence in absence of prosecutor; conviction unsafe on appeal.
|
16 September 2003 |
|
Conviction for cattle theft quashed due to hearsay, improperly admitted confession, and unfair procedure.
Criminal law – theft – sufficiency of evidence; inadmissible hearsay from uncalled witnesses; requirements for admitting cautioned/confession statements; procedural fairness – proceeding in absence of prosecutor; conviction quashed for evidentiary and procedural defects.
|
16 September 2003 |
|
|
16 September 2003 |
|
A Primary Court cannot terminate proceedings by administrative letter; later court proceedings begun while a matter is res sub judice are nullities.
Civil procedure — res sub judice and res judicata — jurisdictional conflict between concurrent proceedings — Primary Court cannot terminate proceedings by administrative letter — judicial order required; proceedings instituted while matter pending are nullity.
|
16 September 2003 |
|
An appeal lacking the decree required by Order XXXIX r.1(1) CPC is incompetent and must be dismissed.
Civil Procedure – Appeal requirements – Order XXXIX r.1(1) CPC – mandatory requirement to attach copy of decree or order to memorandum of appeal; non‑compliance renders appeal incompetent and liable to dismissal.
|
9 September 2003 |
|
Where pleadings sought divorce, court erred in granting unpleaded separation; divorce granted and damages claim dismissed.
Family law – Divorce v. separation – Court must grant only reliefs pleaded; divorce requires breakdown beyond repair. Procedural fairness – necessity to frame issues, address preliminary objections (s.101 certificate), and allow reply to amended pleadings. Matrimonial relief – scope of "matrimonial relief" under s.83 does not clearly include damages for abuse/defamation; separate action recommended. Costs – normally follow the event; awardable in matrimonial proceedings.
|
5 September 2003 |
|
High Court quashed District Court judgment for failing to hear parties and for improperly overturning Primary Court's credibility findings.
* Civil procedure — Appeal — Appellate court must hear parties on appeal before delivering judgment. * Evidence — Credibility — Appellate court should not overturn primary court's credibility findings without adequate basis. * Land law — Allocation and proof — Failure to call village authority is not necessarily fatal when trial court accepted other credible evidence.
|
4 September 2003 |
|
Appellate court must hear parties; if it relies on doubtful evidence it may be quashed and primary court restored.
Civil procedure – Appeal – duty of appellate court to hear parties before delivering judgment; Evidence – assessment of credibility – effect of hostile relationship on weight of testimony; Land law – village allocation claims and evidential burden; Appellate interference with primary court findings.
|
4 September 2003 |
|
Leave granted to sue in Resident Magistrate’s Court where unregistered land dispute raises mixed law and fact.
Land law – Unregistered land dispute involving ownership, loss of income and damages – Jurisdiction and forum – Grant of leave to commence proceedings in Resident Magistrate’s Court instead of Primary Court – Mixed questions of law and fact.
|
4 September 2003 |
|
Leave granted to sue in Resident Magistrate's Court over unregistered land due to likely complex legal issues.
Magistrates' Courts Act s.63(1) – Leave to transfer from Primary Court – Dispute concerning unregistered land – Appropriate forum where substantial points of law likely to arise – Order XLIII r.2 Civil Procedure Code.
|
4 September 2003 |
|
Leave granted to sue in the Resident Magistrate's Court for an unregistered land dispute due to anticipated legal complexity.
* Civil procedure – leave to institute proceedings in a higher magistrate's court under proviso to s.63 Magistrate's Courts Act.
* Land law – unregistered land – trespass and threatened encroachment.
* Jurisdictional allocation between Primary Court and Resident Magistrate's Court; application under Order XLIII r.2 CPC.
|
4 September 2003 |
|
Leave granted to appeal key legal questions on taxation of advocates' costs, advocate-client status of employee-advocates, and related statutory construction.
Advocates — Taxation of costs — Time bar under ss.61 & 62 Advocates Ordinance — Advocate-client relationship where advocate is an employee — Power to tax costs without High Court order (r.9 GN 515/1991; s.62 Advocates Ordinance) — Meaning of "instruction to defend" where no defence/appearance — Requirement to prove advocate's salary when awarding instruction fees.
|
2 September 2003 |
|
Leave granted to appeal on whether an employed advocate can be a client’s advocate and related taxation issues.
Advocates Ordinance (Cap.341) ss.60, 61, 62; Advocates' Remuneration and Taxation of Costs Rules GN No.515/1991 r.9; taxation of costs; advocate-client relationship where advocate is an employee; requirement of High Court order for taxation; proof of advocate’s salary in assessing instruction fees.
|
2 September 2003 |
| August 2003 |
|
|
Conviction for defilement upheld; victim found under 14; corporal punishment set aside, 20-year sentence maintained.
Criminal law – Defilement (s.136 Penal Code) – elements: carnal knowledge and age under 14; Evidence – victim testimony corroborated by siblings and neighbours and signs of injury/semen; Sentencing – s.136(4) mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years; Corporal punishment held improper where statutory minimum imprisonment applies.
|
29 August 2003 |
|
Conviction for defilement upheld; corporal punishment set aside because statute prescribes a mandatory 20-year imprisonment.
Criminal law – Defilement (s.136(1) Penal Code) – proof of carnal knowledge and victim's age; corroboration of victim’s account; appellate deference to trial court’s credibility findings. Sentencing – mandatory minimum 20 years for defilement following statutory amendment – corporal punishment invalid alongside prescribed imprisonment.
|
29 August 2003 |
|
High Court set aside proceedings for improperly treating resumed trial as ex parte and ordered reconstitution from recorded testimony.
Civil procedure — change of venue and reassignment of magistrate — requirement to record reasons; Ex parte proceedings — meaning and applicability where trial commenced with both parties present; Revisional powers — setting aside irregular proceedings and ordering reconstitution of trial.
|
29 August 2003 |
|
Conviction for causing deaths by dangerous driving cannot rest on witnesses' unsupported opinion of high speed.
Road Traffic – Criminal liability for causing death/bodily injury by dangerous driving – sufficiency of opinion evidence as to speed – unsupported witness statements inadequate to establish recklessness or dangerous manner; causation where mechanical failure asserted.
|
27 August 2003 |
|
Denial of a litigant’s constitutional right to engage an advocate vitiated the trial and required a de novo hearing.
Constitutional right to legal representation – Article 13(6)(a) – duty of court to inform self‑represented parties and permit counsel – failure to inquire or allow representation renders proceedings void – procedural fairness in employment litigation.
|
26 August 2003 |
|
|
26 August 2003 |
|
|
25 August 2003 |
|
Appeal lacking attached decree/order is incompetent; appeal struck out with leave to reapply and costs each party to bear.
Civil procedure – Appeal competency – Petition of appeal must be accompanied by copy of decree/order appealed (Order XXXIX r.1(1) & Order XL r.2 CPC) – Appeal filed in wrong court (District vs High Court) – Duty of trial court and registrar to draw/dispatch decree and guide unrepresented appellants – Remedy: strike out and allow reapplication for extension of time.
|
20 August 2003 |
|
The court authorised the petitioner’s adoption of the infant, finding statutory compliance and that the adoption served the child’s best interests.
* Adoption law – Adoption Ordinance Cap 335 – compliance with statutory requirements; consent and Guardian ad litem report; best interests of the child; Registrar of Births to record adoption and mark birth entry “adopted.”
|
20 August 2003 |