|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| April 2016 |
|
|
Pre‑acquired property substantially improved during the relationship is matrimonial; non‑monetary supervision can entitle a spouse to a share.
Family law – Matrimonial property – Section 114(3) Law of Marriage Act – pre‑acquired property substantially improved during relationship becomes matrimonial property. Family law – Contributions – non‑monetary supervision as contribution entitling spouse to share. Division of matrimonial assets – equitable apportionment where monetary contributions are unascertainable.
|
30 April 2016 |
|
District Court cannot extend time for revision under s.20(4); ex‑parte Primary Court orders must be vacated before challenge.
Magistrates Courts Act — s.20(4): power to extend time applies to appeals, not revision; s.22(1) & (4): District Court’s revisional powers but limited to twelve months; revision is not an automatic statutory right. Ex‑parte judgments — must be vacated before being challenged by appeal or revision; locus standi requirements.
|
29 April 2016 |
|
Conviction relying on weak night-time visual identification and absent prior description was quashed as unsafe.
• Criminal law – visual identification – night-time identification and conditions favouring correct identification
• Identification parade – necessity of prior detailed description to the person first reported to (Bushiri principle)
• Evidence – burden to eliminate possibilities of mistaken identity before acting on visual ID
• Authorities: Bushiri Amiri v R; Waziri Amani v R; Raymond Francis v R
|
28 April 2016 |
|
An employer may recover losses from an employee for negligent breach of contractual duties, independent of terminating employment.
Employment law – employer’s claim for loss – recovery from employee for breach/negligence of contractual duties independent of termination. Civil procedure – ex parte proof – plaintiff’s burden to prove existence of contract, breach, causation and loss. Evidence – documentary and witness proof of breaches to banking procedures and quantification of loss.
|
22 April 2016 |
|
Appellant failed to overturn concurrent findings that the respondent lawfully purchased the disputed parcel; appeal dismissed with costs.
Appeals from Primary Courts – Rule 16 requirements; appellate scope: points for determination and reasons; evaluation of evidence on balance of probabilities in Primary Court appeals; concurrent findings of fact – reluctance of second appellate court to disturb; proof of title by purchase; inapplicability of Methusela principle where parcels differ.
|
22 April 2016 |
|
Whether time for lodging a reference runs from issue of the certified copy and whether raising such points as preliminary objections was proper.
Advocates' (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Rules — Rule 5(1),(2) and Rule 6(1),(2) — time for lodging reference — meaning of "issue" of certified copy — time reckoned from supply/issue to applicant, not date of signing; procedure — impropriety of raising substantive points as preliminary objections when relief sought in chamber summons; Mukisa Biscuits and Ashmore cited.
|
22 April 2016 |
|
Plaintiff's land/trespass claim was dismissed as time-barred due to failure to plead when the cause of action arose.
Limitation law – tort of trespass – three-year limitation under item 6, Part I of schedule to the Law of Limitation Act. Pleading requirements – failure to state when cause of action arose contrary to Order VII r.1(e) CPC. Time-bar – preliminary objection upheld and suit dismissed under s.3(1) Limitation Act.
|
20 April 2016 |
|
Applicant had locus standi; two affidavit paragraphs expunged; preliminary objections otherwise overruled with costs.
Civil procedure – preliminary objection – locus standi – amendment of pleadings to correct typographical name error. Civil procedure – affidavits – prohibition on legal conclusions and opinions in affidavits – Order XIX; remedy: expunction of offending paragraphs. Civil procedure – review jurisdiction – existence of judgment/order/decree necessary for review – such factual/contentious issues not suitable for disposal as preliminary objections. Application for extension of time – governed by Limitation Act s.14(1) – procedural objections challenging existence of reviewable order require evidence.
|
14 April 2016 |
|
Claim for kithumuni dismissed as time‑barred and improperly brought against non‑legal representatives; lower courts’ proceedings quashed.
Limitation of actions – accrual of claim for kithumuni; requirement to obtain Minister’s leave under s.44 for extension of limitation period; Civil procedure – actions against a deceased’s estate must be directed to the legal representative (executor/administrator); Preliminary objections – time bar and wrong party as dispositive grounds to quash lower courts’ proceedings.
|
14 April 2016 |
|
Court grants bail on economic‑crime charges, holding EOCCA provides bail conditions despite subsection 36(4)(e) nullification.
Criminal procedure — Bail for economic offences — interplay between EOCCA and Criminal Procedure Act; applicability of EOCCA as primary procedural law. Constitutional decision effect — nullification of legislative provision (section 36(4)(e) EOCCA) for failure to amend; consequences for bail conditions. Whether CPA s.148(5)(e) (deposit half property value) applies after EOCCA provision nullification. Discretionary and mandatory bail conditions under EOCCA s.36(5)–(6).
|
13 April 2016 |
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction to revise Primary Court proceedings; application improperly filed and struck out with costs.
Civil procedure — Revision — High Court lacks direct revisional jurisdiction over Primary Courts; Magistrates' Courts Act s.22(1)/s.25(1) vests revisional jurisdiction in District Court — Civil Procedure Code s.79(1) inapplicable to Primary Courts — wrong forum/incorrect citation — application incompetent and struck out with costs.
|
13 April 2016 |
|
Conviction quashed where cautioned statement was improperly admitted, stolen property ownership unproved, and identification evidence unsafe.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – necessity for proof beyond reasonable doubt in capital offences; identification evidence must eliminate possibilities of mistaken identity (Waziri Amani).; Criminal procedure – Identification parades – compliance with Police General Order No. 232 and requirements for ‘similar’ parade participants.; Evidence – Cautioned statements – trial inquiry required on objection before admission; failure to hold inquiry renders statement inadmissible.; Evidence – Stolen property and recent possession doctrine – prosecution must positively identify ownership and nexus to accused before relying on possession as corroboration.
|
8 April 2016 |
|
Plaintiff’s fire losses proven but defendant not shown liable; suit dismissed and each party to bear own costs.
Fire damage — origin established in defendant’s kitchen but no proof of defendant’s responsibility; Negligence — burden to prove duty and breach not satisfied; Contributory negligence — plaintiff not shown to have contributed; Rylands v Fletcher — strict liability not applicable without escape/non‑natural use; Damages — plaintiff suffered loss but defendant not liable.
|
8 April 2016 |
|
Conviction based on night-time visual and unproven vocal identification was unsafe; prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification at night – necessity to establish intensity of light, duration and proximity; Visual identification is of the weakest kind (Waziri Amani). Criminal law – Vocal identification – admissibility requires proof that witness was very familiar with accused's voice. Standard of proof – prosecution must exclude possibility of mistaken identity beyond reasonable doubt.
|
1 April 2016 |