|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| July 2016 |
|
|
Revision dismissed; CMA award of substantive unfair dismissal and reinstatement upheld.
Labour law – unfair dismissal – substantive fairness (employer’s burden of proof); procedural fairness – Code of Good Practice; arbitration review – allegations of misconduct, bias, gross irregularity, excess of jurisdiction and improperly procured awards; reinstatement remedy.
|
29 July 2016 |
|
Defective verification of an affidavit is curable; court struck it out but allowed limited leave to refile a proper affidavit.
Civil procedure — Verification of affidavits — Order VI r.15(2) CPC — Defective verification (own knowledge vs information and belief) — Whether defect is fatal — Leave to file proper verified affidavit — Costs.
|
29 July 2016 |
|
A valid DPP certificate under s.36(2) EOCCA that meets the three-part test prevents grant of bail to the applicant.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Certificate by Director of Public Prosecutions under s.36(2) Economic and Organized Crimes Control Act – Validity test: (i) written; (ii) states safety/interests of the State likely prejudiced; (iii) relates to pending case – Valid certificate bars grant of bail; analogy with s.148(4) Criminal Procedure Act considered.
|
28 July 2016 |
|
Court held identification reliable (lighting, duration, familiarity) and dismissed appeal against armed robbery conviction.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – visual identification – requirements: source and intensity of light, proximity, duration and familiarity – Waziri Amani applied. Identification parade – necessity and compliance with Police General Orders – admissibility and probative value. Evidence – earlier statements (s.166 Evidence Act) may corroborate in‑court identification; minor inconsistencies do not necessarily vitiate conviction. Procedural – failure to summon medical practitioner under s.240(3) CPA not fatal if medical evidence not central.
|
27 July 2016 |
|
An ascertainment application is premature if it raises merits; late submissions without leave are disregarded.
Civil procedure – Execution of decree – Order XXI Rules 10–15 – distinction between formal ascertainment for admission and substantive merits (conformity and computation) – improper venue for merits determination. Civil procedure – Time limits – Section 93 CPC – written submissions filed out of time without leave are improperly before the court and not to be considered.
|
27 July 2016 |
|
Discharge under section 225(5) CPA is not a favourable termination for malicious prosecution; appellant failed to prove his claims.
Malicious prosecution – elements; requirement of favourable termination – discharge under s.225(5) CPA not equivalent to acquittal on merits; burden on plaintiff to prove defendant instituted prosecution and absence of reasonable/probable cause; defamation – need evidence of reputational lowering; curtailed liberty – requires proof of unlawful detention.
|
26 July 2016 |
|
Whether the appellant’s appeal was time-barred and whether the abuse-of-process objection was a proper preliminary point.
Criminal procedure – DPP’s right to appeal – time limits under s.379 CPA – time to obtain certified copies excluded when computing time. Service of process – documents must be addressed to and received by the DPP or State Attorney; Attorney General’s stamp not proof of service. Procedural law – abuse of process is a matter for the merits, not a preliminary point of objection. Courts’ duty – notify parties when certified copies of proceedings/judgment are ready for collection.
|
25 July 2016 |
|
Time spent obtaining judgment/decree copies is excluded under section 19, so the appeal was not time-barred and may proceed.
Law of Limitation Act – section 19(2) – exclusion of time for obtaining copies of judgment/decree when computing limitation – distinction from section 14 (extension of time) – requirements for memorandum of appeal to show dates evidencing entitlement to exclusion.
|
22 July 2016 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove defendant knowingly made a false statement or maliciously prosecuted; claim dismissed.
False statement; malicious prosecution – elements required to prove falsity, knowledge and intent; nolle prosequi or discharge not conclusive proof of falsity; ex‑parte proceedings; no costs where defendant absent.
|
22 July 2016 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove defendant knowingly made a false statement or maliciously prosecuted him; claim dismissed.
False statement — requirement that statement be knowingly untrue and made with intent to mislead; Malicious prosecution — elements: termination in favour, defendant's active role, lack of probable cause, improper purpose; Ex parte proceedings where defendant absent; Failure of criminal prosecution does not alone prove falsity of complaint.
|
22 July 2016 |
|
Court dismissed plaintiff's suit for want of prosecution and ordered the defendant's counterclaim to proceed ex parte.
Civil procedure – want of prosecution – dismissal of suit under Order IX Rule 8 for prolonged non-appearance; counterclaim – effect of timely reply and ex parte hearing – Order VII Rule 14(2); third party notice application – withdrawal and liberty to re-file.
|
20 July 2016 |
|
Plaintiff's claim for gravel and crop compensation failed for lack of valuation evidence and failure to follow land acquisition/compensation procedures.
Land law – status of land and subsurface materials – Land Act (CAP 113) – land vested in the President as trustee; subsurface materials and burrow pits. Evidence – proof of special/damages – requirement for valuer’s report under s.110(1) Law of Evidence Act. Procedure – exhaustion of statutory remedies and land acquisition/compensation process under Land Acquisition Act (CAP 334) and GN No. 78/2001. Contract works/road construction – roles of employer (TANROADS) and contractor regarding compensation and re-instatement obligations.
|
20 July 2016 |
|
Will provision upheld: parties hold equal shares; family house not sold or partitioned without heirs' consent.
Succession/Probate – validity and effect of testamentary disposition – item in will (item X) upheld as still in force and governs treatment of family house. Land law – co-ownership/tenants in common – parties declared to have equal rights, shares and responsibilities in suit property. Civil procedure – jurisdictional limits – estate administration and inventory matters are for probate processes, not for resolution as framed in this suit. Remedies – family house not liable for sale, division or partition without lawful heirs' consent.
|
19 July 2016 |
|
Court overruled preliminary objections, confirming Order XXXVII Rule 1(a) and section 68(e) support the temporary injunction application.
Civil procedure – Interlocutory relief – Temporary injunction – Order XXXVII Rule 1(a) CPC – Section 68(e) CPC as supplemental power – Preliminary objections – Jurisdictional objection to be raised in main suit – Citation of irrelevant provisions not fatal.
|
19 July 2016 |
|
Adultery proven by child paternity entitles plaintiff to general, not exemplary, damages under section 74(1).
Adultery — proof by birth/paternity and absent defence — damages for adultery; section 74(1) Law of Marriage Act — exemplary damages barred; ex parte hearing where defendants default.
|
18 July 2016 |
|
Bank acted as collecting bank and breached CAD obligations; guarantors discharged after unconsented extension; plaintiff failed to prove debt.
Banking law – seller’s/collecting bank and Cash Against Documents (CAD) – breach by releasing shipping documents without payment; Evidence – reliability of bank statements and unexplained ledger entries; Set-off – requirements and limitation bars for contractual claims; Contract law – guarantor discharged where creditor varies or extends principal contract without surety’s assent.
|
14 July 2016 |
|
Company wound up under Companies Act for inability to pay debts after statutory demand and creditors’ support.
Companies Act – Winding up – inability to pay debts – statutory demand under s.280 – s.279(1)(d) just and equitable ground – appointment of liquidator under s.294(1) – creditors’ support and respondent’s concession.
|
12 July 2016 |
|
Appeal dismissed; PF3 expunged, but child complainant’s credible testimony upheld conviction under s.127(7).
Criminal law – Sexual offence (unnatural offence) – Credibility of child complainant; Evidence Act s.127(7) – conviction on uncorroborated testimony of victim of sexual offence; Criminal Procedure Act s.240(3) – mandatory right to summon medical personnel; identification evidence – recognition of neighbour; appellate review of credibility and minor inconsistencies.
|
8 July 2016 |
|
Applicant’s unexplained delay and prior counsel’s conduct defeated extension of time to appeal.
Limitation of actions – extension of time to appeal under s.14(1) Law of Limitation Act; requirement to account for each day of delay; effect of prior counsel’s conduct and requests for certified copies; alleged illegality in trial proceedings as ground for extension.
|
8 July 2016 |
|
Failure by the applicant to cite specific sub‑rules and relying on s.95 CPC rendered the application incompetent.
Civil Procedure – Interim relief – Orders XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 CPC – necessity to cite specific sub‑rules/paragraphs; failure to cite is fatal; Section 95 CPC – preserves inherent/supplementary powers only, does not create independent jurisdiction to grant mandatory injunctions; alternative relief cannot stand where statutory authority is absent.
|
8 July 2016 |
|
A post‑judgment private agreement not registered in court cannot override a court decree; executing court must proceed with division of assets.
Family law — Matrimonial property — Execution of judgment — Post‑judgment private agreement — Effect of unregistered consent on court decree — Res judicata and executing court jurisdiction.
|
8 July 2016 |
|
A counter-affidavit accompanied by a dated, signed jurat and court fee receipt is valid; the objection to it is overruled.
Notaries Public and Commissioners for Oaths Act s.8 – jurat must state place and date – validity of affidavit – attestation by Commissioner for Oaths – effect of Exchequer Receipt Voucher evidencing court fee payment – duplicate affidavit copies.
|
5 July 2016 |