|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2012 |
|
|
Whether citizenship and immigration laws unlawfully discriminate by gender in spousal residency and naturalization rights.
Constitutional law – Citizenship and immigration – Spousal naturalization and residence permits – Whether statutory scheme discriminates by gender – Dependant’s Pass vs. residence permits – International instruments do not dictate national naturalization procedures.
|
13 December 2012 |
|
Court refused extension to file a counter-affidavit and granted an interim injunction restraining disposal of the disputed property.
Civil procedure – application for interlocutory injunction – failure to file counter-affidavit – refusal of extension of time where excuse is implausible – interim restraint on disposition of disputed property pending main suit.
|
10 December 2012 |
| November 2012 |
|
|
|
2 November 2012 |
| October 2012 |
|
|
Whether Court of Appeal Rules govern High Court extension applications and whether lack of prior leave bars filing a notice of appeal.
* Appellate practice — extension of time to file notice of intention to appeal — procedure before High Court versus Court of Appeal Rules.
* Procedural law — applicability of Court of Appeal Rules to subordinate courts and High Court applications.
* Appellate Jurisdiction Act — requirement for leave under s.5(2)(i) and its relationship to extension applications.
* Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 83(4) permitting lodging of appeal where leave is required; Rule 10 on extension of time not an enabling provision for High Court in this context.
* Consent judgments — general non-appealability but possible exceptions.
|
19 October 2012 |
|
Court orders de novo rehearing of unresolved matrimonial property division; respondent may remain in house with the child pending final determination.
Family law — Division of matrimonial property — Application of s.114(2) Law of Marriage Act: consider customs, contributions, debts and children’s needs — custody/maintenance does not automatically confer ownership of matrimonial home — need for clear evidence on acquisition, disposition, valuations and business assets — rehearing de novo ordered; interim occupation by mother for child’s welfare; status quo preserved.
|
18 October 2012 |
|
Ambiguous probate ruling resolved by appointing the appellant and respondent as co-administrators of the deceased's estate.
Probate and administration — ambiguous appellate probate order — whether sole appointment was revoked or co-administration intended — administrators’ duties versus ownership — section 29(c) and section 32(2) Magistrates' Courts Act invoked — requirement to file inventory and potential sanctions for non-compliance.
|
5 October 2012 |
|
High Court partly allowed appeal and appointed both parties as co-administrators, certifying the order to the Primary Court.
Probate and administration – appointment of administrators – clarity of appellate orders – whether a prior appointment was revoked or both parties to be co-administrators – administration duties vs ownership rights – invocation of section 29(c) and certification under section 32(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act.
|
5 October 2012 |
| September 2012 |
|
|
Court orders interim maintenance, return of personal apparel and preservation of matrimonial properties pending final determination.
Matrimonial proceedings – Interim relief – Maintenance pending final determination; Return of personal effects; Preservation/maintenance of status quo over disputed matrimonial properties; Deposit of interim payments and items in Court.
|
21 September 2012 |
|
Court ordered interim maintenance, preservation of matrimonial properties and return of personal effects pending final matrimonial determination.
Interim matrimonial relief – Maintenance pending matrimonial proceedings under Law of Marriage Act; preservation of status quo of disputed matrimonial property; interim delivery of personal effects; payment into Court pending final determination.
|
21 September 2012 |
|
Custody or maintenance duties do not alone determine allocation of the matrimonial home; unresolved asset disputes require a rehearing with status-quo interim orders.
Family law — Division of matrimonial property — Custody and maintenance obligations do not automatically determine ownership of matrimonial home — Need for clear evidence on acquisition, disposition, valuation and debts — Remittal for rehearing de novo and interim status-quo orders.
|
18 September 2012 |
|
High Court lacks jurisdiction to tax costs for applications arising from a suit once a notice of appeal is lodged.
Civil procedure – taxation of costs – jurisdiction – effect of notice of appeal – High Court ceases jurisdiction over matters arising from a suit once appeal lodged.
|
12 September 2012 |
| August 2012 |
|
|
|
30 August 2012 |
|
Child’s sworn testimony may be treated as unsworn; procedural omissions curable—appeal dismissed.
* Evidence — child witness (s.127(2) Evidence Act) — competence; oath vs unsworn evidence. * Criminal procedure — ruling on ‘case to answer’ — omission not automatically fatal; curable under s.388. * Sufficiency of evidence — eyewitness account, medical evidence, and admission supporting conviction. * Procedure — absence of investigator’s testimony and speedy hearing not fatal absent shown prejudice.
|
30 August 2012 |
|
The respondent convicted of attempted murder on reliable eyewitness identification and common intention, sentenced to 15 years and ordered to pay compensation.
Criminal law – Attempt to murder – Identification evidence in daylight where victim and witness knew accused – Credibility of relatives’ evidence – Common intention – Alibi defence – Sentencing: previous convictions as aggravation and compensation to victim.
|
24 August 2012 |
|
Appeal partly allowed: assault conviction upheld despite PF.3 defect; stealing conviction quashed for insufficient evidence.
Criminal procedure – section 32 CPA (delay in taking accused to court) – non‑compliance does not automatically vitiate trial; evidence – PF.3 medical report – maker not called reduces evidential value but conviction may stand if remaining evidence sufficient; stealing – conviction requires proof of ownership and value, hearsay insufficient; sentencing – fine permissible under section 27(3) Penal Code.
|
21 August 2012 |
|
Certificate on point of law granted where applicant raised prima facie issues about reliance on allegedly forged/photocopied documents in land dispute.
Appellate procedure — Certificate on point of law where matter originates from Primary Court; test for granting leave/certificate is presence of prima facie/arguable grounds; issues of documentary genuineness and reliance on photocopies/minutes in land ownership disputes.
|
16 August 2012 |
|
Court issued a certificate of point of law permitting appeal on prima facie grounds about disputed documentary evidence and ownership.
* Appellate procedure – leave to appeal vs. Certificate on point of law – appeals originating from Primary Court. * Appellate threshold – prima facie grounds required for leave/certificate. * Evidence – reliance on documentary evidence (alleged fake documents, photocopies) and elders' minutes in land ownership disputes.
|
16 August 2012 |
|
Failure to file the statutory notice of intention to appeal renders the appeal incompetent; prison letters cannot substitute.
* Criminal Procedure Act, s.361(1)(a) – notice of intention to appeal – mandatory requirement – competence of appeal
* Prisoners – role of prison authorities in preparing notices – letters from Officer In‑Charge do not substitute for statutory notice
* Constitution (Art. 107A) – avoidance of technicalities does not excuse non‑compliance with mandatory statutory requirements
* Procedural law – failure to file notice of intention to appeal renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out
|
7 August 2012 |
|
Extension of time to appeal granted due to former counsel’s negligence and arguable merits of the land dispute.
Land law – extension of time to file appeal – delay attributable to counsel’s negligence – sufficient cause to extend time; Tribunal dismissal on preliminary objection (locus standi) – merits and interest of justice considered.
|
4 August 2012 |
|
Former counsel’s negligence constituted sufficient cause to grant an extension to file an out-of-time appeal in a land dispute.
Extension of time; application for leave to appeal out of time; negligence/disservice by former counsel as sufficient cause; locus standi; land dispute; interests of justice; ex parte affidavit evidence.
|
4 August 2012 |
|
Affidavit defects and citation errors are curable; court should allow amendment or supplementary affidavit rather than outright dismissal.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objections – dismissal for defects in affidavit – discretion to allow amendment or file supplementary affidavit rather than striking out. * Affidavit practice – contents may be varied by supplementary affidavit; offending paragraphs may be expunged. * Mis‑description/citation of originating cause – curable error where intention is clear. * Execution – complaint premature where no extracted order existed.
|
3 August 2012 |
|
Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed for failure to show sufficient cause after prolonged inaction.
Civil procedure — extension of time to file Notice of Appeal — sufficiency of cause — delay of about 11 years — advocate negligence and brief illness do not suffice; prospects of appeal not decisive.
|
3 August 2012 |
| July 2012 |
|
|
Leave granted to sue a specified public corporation; receiver must be joined and court leave required under bankruptcy law.
Public corporations — receivership — assets and liabilities vest in receiver; leave required under Bankruptcy Act s.9(1) to sue specified public corporation; compulsory joinder of receiver (CHC); registration of claims and procedural preconditions.
|
25 July 2012 |
| June 2012 |
|
|
Suit against Labour Commissioner was time-barred; plaintiff must seek extension under section 44 before court will hear it.
Industrial Court Act s.6(2) – duty of Labour Commissioner to refer trade dispute within 21 days; Limitation – Law of Limitation Act (First Schedule item 24) six-year prescription; accrual of cause of action on failure to perform statutory duty; requirement to apply for extension of time under s.44 before court entertains time-barred claims.
|
19 June 2012 |
|
Court dismissed claim as time‑barred: cause of action against Labour Commissioner accrued on statutory referral failure; six‑year limitation applies.
Limitation of actions – accrual of cause where statutory duty to refer trade dispute (Industrial Court Act s.6(2)) is breached – six‑year limitation period (Law of Limitation Act, item 24) – requirement to seek extension of time under s.44 when time barred – evidentiary burden to prove tolling or delay excusable.
|
19 June 2012 |
|
Court refused judge’s disqualification and recorded a signed mediated settlement, passing decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.
Civil procedure – Settlement recorded and decree – Recording and enforcement of a signed mediated settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC; Judicial conduct – disqualification and apparent bias – test for recusal; Counsel’s objections and delay tactics; Costs for frivolous disqualification application.
|
8 June 2012 |
| May 2012 |
|
|
Revision application struck out for wrong enabling provision and for seeking review of interlocutory orders.
Criminal procedure — Revision — Wrong or non‑existent enabling provision renders application incompetent — Typographical errors cannot be used to invoke jurisdictional powers — Revision against interlocutory orders prohibited by s.43(2) Magistrates' Courts Act and s.372(2) Criminal Procedure Act — Exceptional revision for proceedings generally limited to apparent confusion, inconsistency, illegality or irrationality.
|
11 May 2012 |
|
Procedural defects in the charge sheet—omitting section 130 and lack of alleged absence of consent—rendered the conviction a nullity.
Criminal procedure – Charge sheet requirements – Statement of offence must refer to the section creating the offence; particulars must allege essential ingredients (absence of consent in rape); omission renders charge incurably defective and conviction a nullity; revisional power to quash proceedings and set aside sentence; sentencing illegality where juvenile/young offender recorded as 18.
|
7 May 2012 |
| April 2012 |
|
|
Application for revision filed under wrong statutory provision is incompetent and struck out with costs.
• Civil procedure – competence of application – requirement to cite correct enabling statutory provision; wrong citation renders application incompetent; • Civil procedure – interlocutory orders – generally not subject to appeal/revision unless they finally determine the suit; • Evidence/procedure – affidavit jurat requirements – place and date must be stated (Notaries Public and Commissioners of Oaths Act); • Withdrawal and refiling – cannot be used to preempt valid preliminary objections.
|
17 April 2012 |
|
The applicant's revision application, brought under the wrong statutory provision, was struck out as incompetent with costs.
* Civil procedure – competence of application – correct citation of enabling provisions – wrong or non‑citation renders application incompetent.
* Civil procedure – interlocutory orders – preliminary or interlocutory decisions not ordinarily subject to revision/appeal unless final.
* Affidavit formalities – jurat must state place and date per section 8 of Notaries Public and Commissioners of Oaths Act; omission may render affidavit defective.
|
17 April 2012 |
Elections – Election Campaigns – Regulation of Election Campaigns
Elections - Election Petitions - Nullification of Elections
Elections - Election Petitions – Burden of Proof in Election Cases |
5 April 2012 |
|
Voters proved gender-based and scandalous campaign statements by the candidate, nullifying his election under the Elections Act.
Electoral law – locus standi of voters under National Elections Act – sufficiency of pleading of campaign statements – admissibility and credibility of witnesses – unlawful exploitation of gender and scandalous defamatory statements vitiating election under s.108(1)(a).
|
5 April 2012 |
|
Election voided where candidate used gender-exploitative and scandalous defamatory statements during campaign rallies.
* Election law – standing – registered voters may present election petitions under National Elections Act; * Pleading – verbatim words not required if substance sufficiently pleaded; * Evidence – assessment of credibility; independent non-party witnesses can corroborate campaign misconduct; * Campaign offences – exploitation of gender differences and scandalous/defamatory allegations can vitiate election (s.108(1)(a)); * Remedy – declaration of void election, costs, notification to electoral authority (s.114).
|
5 April 2012 |
|
Registered voters proved candidate’s gender-exploitative and defamatory campaign statements, leading to election being declared void.
Election law – locus standi – registered voters may present election petitions under section 3(1)(a) of the National Elections Act; Pleading – not required to set out verbatim alleged defamatory campaign words where pleaded particulars enable defence; Prohibited campaign conduct – statements exploiting gender or making scandalous imputations can void an election under s.108; Credibility – partisan witnesses may be discredited where interest exists.
|
5 April 2012 |
|
The respondent’s election was voided for gender-exploitative and scandalous defamatory campaign statements.
* Elections law – standing – registered voters entitled to present election petitions under s.3(1)(a).
* Elections law – pleading – particulars of alleged campaign statements need not be verbatim; pleaded particulars sufficient to enable defence.
* Elections law – prohibited conduct – statements exploiting gender differences and scandalous defamatory statements in campaigns may void an election (s.108(1)(a)).
* Evidence – credibility – partisan witnesses with clear interests treated with caution; independent non‑party witnesses afforded weight.
|
5 April 2012 |
|
Father cannot be held liable for adult son’s negligent driving; plaintiff lacked ownership proof and failed to substantiate special damages.
• Civil procedure – Primary Court jurisdiction in civil claims for repair costs arising from traffic accidents; limitation period for ordinary civil suits (six years).
• Civil liability – liability of parent for acts of adult child; requirement that wrongdoer be proper party to the suit.
• Locus standi – plaintiff must prove ownership or authority to sue for loss to another’s property.
• Evidence – special damages must be strictly proved by receipts, invoices or inspection reports.
|
4 April 2012 |
| March 2012 |
|
|
Court granted resealing of foreign grant of probate after publication and absence of objections.
* Probate – Resealing of foreign grant – Application under section 95 Probate Act and Rules 97–98 – Copy of foreign grant, will and inventory – Publication in Government Gazette – No caveat filed – District Registrar directed to reseal.
|
27 March 2012 |
| February 2012 |
|
|
Employment-related tort claims fall within the Labour Division’s exclusive jurisdiction; suit struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Labour law — Jurisdiction — Labour Division (Labour Court) has exclusive jurisdiction over employment-related and tortious claims arising from employment; general damages do not determine pecuniary jurisdiction; suit struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
|
13 February 2012 |
|
Employment-related and tortious claims fall within the Labour Division’s exclusive jurisdiction; suit struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Labour law jurisdiction – Employment and labour disputes (including tortious and vicarious liability) fall within exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Labour Division; Pecuniary jurisdiction – substantive claim, not pleaded quantum for general damages, determines court’s pecuniary jurisdiction; Pleading – general damages should not be specifically quantified; Remedy – suit struck out for being in wrong forum and plaintiff advised to refile in Labour Division.
|
13 February 2012 |
|
Primary/Primary Court lacked jurisdiction to determine land disputes in probate proceedings; appeal allowed and matter remitted to competent tribunals.
• Probate and administration — competing title claims — whether probate proceedings may decide ownership of land and livestock; jurisdictional limits of Primary/Magistrates' Courts under Land Disputes Courts Act. • Civil procedure — preliminary objections vs. institution of fresh suit in land disputes. • Administrator appointment — not invalid merely because alleged there is nothing to administer.
|
2 February 2012 |
|
Appeal allowed: land and high-value livestock disputes touching estates fall outside Primary Court civil jurisdiction and must go to competent fora.
Procedure — Probate and administration — Jurisdiction — Primary Courts lack civil jurisdiction over land disputes under the Land Disputes Courts Act; competing estate claims involving land or high-value livestock must be determined by competent land tribunals or courts; administrators should institute or be sued in proper fora.
|
2 February 2012 |
| January 2012 |
|
|
High Court struck out application for judicial review of ministerial labour decision due to lost jurisdiction under transitional labour law reforms.
* Labour law – jurisdiction – effect of repeal of Security of Employment Act and enactment of Employment and Labour Relations Act – transitional provisions in Third Schedule (item 13) as amended by Written Laws (Misc. Amendments) Act No. 11 of 2010. * Judicial review – prerogative orders (certiorari and mandamus) – High Court’s competence to review ministerial labour decisions pre- and post-enactment. * Procedural – pending disputes under repealed laws to be determined under transitional regime; referral to Labour Commission.
|
27 January 2012 |
|
10% monthly interest set aside where lower courts relied on documents not admitted in evidence.
Civil procedure – admissibility of documents – trial court erred by basing judgment on documents not admitted in evidence; loan agreement – existence of loan admitted but interest term (10% monthly) not proved; evidence allegedly obtained under police coercion questioned; appellate correction by substituting normal court interest.
|
9 January 2012 |