|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2013 |
|
|
Appeal allowed: ex parte judgment set aside due to procedural inconsistency and failure to consider relevant circumstances.
Civil procedure – ex parte judgment – application to set aside – inconsistency in trial court orders (ex parte hearing vs. issuing summons) – failure to consider advocate’s inability to attend due to traffic – remittal for inter partes hearing.
|
26 November 2013 |
|
Court reduced arbitrator's 18‑month compensation to the 12‑month statutory minimum and ordered nine years' severance pay.
Labour law – unfair termination – procedural fairness – compensation under section 40(1)(c) – minimum 12 months' remuneration; Labour law – severance pay under section 42 – entitlement after continuous service – court's power under Rule 55(2) to grant statutory relief not claimed at CMA; appellate revision – correction of excessive arbitral awards.
|
21 November 2013 |
|
Reliability of identification parades and voluntariness of a retracted confession supported convictions; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification parades – Reliability of in‑court / parade identifications where witnesses saw accused in daylight prior to parade. Criminal procedure – Confessional/caution statements – Retraction and voluntariness – Trial court’s duty to assess voluntariness and effect of excluding confession. Evidence – Sufficiency of prosecution evidence and effect of non‑call of certain witnesses on safety of conviction.
|
20 November 2013 |
|
A review cannot substitute for an appeal; court functus officio and the review application was rejected as incompetent.
Civil procedure – Review – scope limited to discovery of new and important evidence or error apparent on face of record – Review cannot be used as substitute for appeal – Court functus officio regarding its own decision – application held incompetent.
|
20 November 2013 |
|
Review application failed where grounds were appealable, not new evidence or error apparent; Court held review incompetent.
Civil Procedure – Review under Order XLII Rule 1 – Review limited to new evidence or error apparent on face of record – Not a substitute for appeal – Court functus officio regarding its earlier ruling.
|
20 November 2013 |
|
Review application dismissed as incompetent because issues raised were appellate, not review grounds, and court was functus officio.
Civil procedure – Review under Order XLII – Review limited to discovery of new evidence or error apparent on face of record – Court functus officio – Competency of review where grounds are appellate (nullity, lack of jurisdiction, misdirection).
|
20 November 2013 |
|
Lack of evidence of a weapon warranted substituting armed robbery convictions to burglary and reducing sentences.
Criminal law – Armed robbery vs burglary – requirement of proof of weapon or threat for armed robbery – where no evidence of arms, conviction may be substituted to burglary – appellate substitution of conviction and reduction of sentence.
|
18 November 2013 |
|
|
18 November 2013 |
|
Armed robbery conviction substituted to burglary where no evidence of a weapon; sentence reduced to 15 years.
Criminal law – Burglary v. Armed robbery; requirement of proof of weapon for armed robbery; substitution of conviction where evidence fits lesser offence; identification and arrest shortly after offence.
|
18 November 2013 |
|
Application struck out: incompetent for improper citation and barred by res judicata.
Labour procedure – applicability of Civil Procedure Code (Order XLI) to execution/referential matters in the Labour Court; need for proper citation and amended pleadings. Civil procedure – competence of an application where purported leave to amend is not reflected by a filed amended application. Res judicata – finality of judgments in lower courts and on appeal prevents relitigation in another forum. Procedural compliance – requirement for notice of representation under Labour Court Rules (Rule 44).
|
15 November 2013 |
|
Application struck out for being filed late and for failure to file a notice of representation.
Labour procedure — preliminary objection — extension of time and compliance with Court order — notice of representation required under Rule 44(2) — representation at CMA does not automatically extend to High Court.
|
15 November 2013 |
|
Sleeping on duty amounted to misconduct but dismissal was procedurally unfair; limited monetary reliefs awarded, no statutory compensation.
Labour law – Misconduct – Sleeping on duty by security guard; Procedural fairness – Termination – Employer’s duty to follow disciplinary procedure and consider lesser sanctions (Rule 12(4)(a),(b) GN No.42/2007); Remedies – payment of terminal benefits, unpaid leave, repatriation and limited overtime; Compensation under s.40(1)(c) excluded where misconduct established.
|
15 November 2013 |
|
Application dismissed as premature—disciplinary process not completed and CMA had not determined the dispute, so court lacked jurisdiction.
Labour law – jurisdiction – premature filing – requirement to exhaust workplace disciplinary process before CMA determination – revision to High Court only after CMA decision (s.86 ELRA).
|
15 November 2013 |
|
Conviction quashed where it relied on hearsay and involved a land-ownership dispute pending in civil proceedings.
Criminal law – Malicious damage to property – conviction cannot rest on hearsay where the declarant did not testify; Criminal procedure – improper forum – criminal court should not determine disputed land ownership pending in civil proceedings; Evidence – hearsay inadmissibility undermines conviction.
|
11 November 2013 |
|
The applicant's summary dismissal was unlawful due to procedural breaches and insufficient proof of misconduct; awarded 12 months' pay.
Labour law – unfair termination – procedural and substantive fairness under Employment and Labour Relations Act 2004 and GN 42/2007 (Code) Jurisdiction – cause of action deemed to arise on date of dismissal letter Evidence – burden to prove misconduct; senior management responsibility can negate employee culpability Remedy – reinstatement may be refused where delay and partial fault exist; compensation as alternative remedy
|
8 November 2013 |
|
Bank and central bank held jointly responsible for delayed remittance; plaintiff awarded half of the penalty interest.
Banking law – duty to externalize foreign payments – duty to remit customer deposits abroad without undue delay Administrative/monetary policy – foreign-exchange shortage and approval committee affecting externalization Liability apportionment – bank and central bank held jointly responsible for delayed externalization Contractual finance – levy and payment of penalty interest by third-party associate (evidence: bank and IFC correspondence) Remedies – partial reimbursement of penalty and costs awarded
|
4 November 2013 |
|
Bank and central bank held jointly responsible for delayed remittance; defendant ordered to reimburse half the IFC penalty.
Banking law – obligation to externalize customer foreign‑currency deposits; Central bank approvals and forex shortages affecting remittance; Liability for delayed externalization and apportionment of responsibility; Proof by bank correspondence and IFC acknowledgement of payment.
|
4 November 2013 |