|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1996 |
|
|
A trial court erred in requiring corroboration of police testimony; police evidence alone may sustain conviction.
* Criminal law – Evidence – Credibility of police witnesses – Police evidence not inherently unreliable; no automatic requirement for corroboration.
* Criminal law – Possession and manufacture of illicit liquor – Discovery in search and surrounding circumstances can support conviction.
* Sentencing – First offender – fines with default imprisonment proportionate to illicit trade's lucrativeness.
|
12 December 1996 |
|
An incurably defective affidavit supporting a review cannot be amended; attachment order before judgment upheld and main suit expedited.
Civil procedure — review applications — amendment of defective affidavits — incurably defective affidavit cannot be amended; requirement to attach ruling in review applications; preservation/attachment of property before judgment — order upheld; review requires newly discovered facts or error on face of record.
|
12 December 1996 |
|
|
11 December 1996 |
|
Conviction for possession of illicit brew upheld; sentence reduced and appellant released after time served.
Criminal law – possession of illicit brew – constructive possession inferred from environment and conduct of persons on premises; evidentiary sufficiency without chemical proof; sentencing – excessiveness and correction on appeal; time served as adequate punishment.
|
11 December 1996 |
|
Presence in a room where bhang was smoked did not prove possession; conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
* Criminal law – unlawful possession of bhang – presence in same room versus actual possession – single small exhibit insufficient to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt. * Criminal procedure – appellate review – reassessment of trial record and benefit of doubt. * Sentencing – discriminatory sentencing where co-accused fined but appellant imprisoned.
|
11 December 1996 |
|
Unsigned and undated trial judgment violated statutory requirement; sentences quashed and time served deemed to satisfy sentence.
Criminal procedure – requirement that a judgment be dated and signed by the presiding judge or magistrate at the time of pronouncement (s.312(1) CPA) – failure to sign and date is a fundamental defect – sentencing following an unsigned/undated judgment is invalid – sentences quashed – retrospective signing ordered; time already served to be deemed the sentence; parties may seek review on merits.
|
6 December 1996 |
|
Unsigned and undated trial judgement invalidated sentence; court quashed sentences and deemed time served sufficient.
Criminal procedure – requirement to sign and date judgments (s.312(1) CPA) – unsigned/undated judgement vitiates sentence – remedy where sentence partly served – retrospective signing and deeming time served as satisfaction of sentence; preservation of parties' right to seek review.
|
6 December 1996 |
|
Unsigned and undated judgment at pronouncement is a fatal procedural defect warranting quashing of sentence and retrospective correction.
Criminal procedure – requirement to sign and date judgments (s.312(1) CPA) – unsigned/undated judgment pronounced in open court – incurable procedural defect – remedy: quash sentence, retrospective signing of judgment, time served to be deemed sentence; parties may seek review after rectification.
|
6 December 1996 |
| November 1996 |
|
|
Acquittal for trespass upheld; appellant declared lawful owner and respondent prohibited from occupying the land.
Criminal law – Criminal trespass (s.299 Penal Code) – acquittal where accused allegedly misled by vendor; Civil/land – declaration of ownership and prohibitory relief; Appellate procedure – reluctance to disturb lower courts’ factual findings on third appeal.
|
12 November 1996 |
|
Convictions for causing death by dangerous driving upheld; six-year driving ban unlawful and reduced to three years.
* Traffic law – causing death by dangerous driving – proof beyond reasonable doubt – factors: prior knowledge of defective tyres, eyewitness and traffic police expert testimony, and vehicle damage. * Sentencing – driving disqualification – statutory maximum three years; appellate reduction of excessive driving ban.
|
12 November 1996 |
| October 1996 |
|
|
Conviction for cattle theft quashed where identification was unreliable and recent-possession doctrine inapplicable after three years.
Criminal law – Theft – Identification of stolen property – Insufficient/watertight identification where witnesses examined animals at police post before giving descriptions; witnesses with personal interest may be unreliable. Criminal law – Recent possession – Doctrine inapplicable after long lapse (three years). Criminal procedure – Trial misdirection – Conviction cannot rest solely on possession without due consideration of a plausible defence.
|
25 October 1996 |
|
Primary Court judgment absent and procedurally invalid; appeal allowed and both judgments quashed; record remitted for proper determination.
Magistrate's Courts (Primary Courts) — Judgment of Court Rules (Rule 3) — Requirement of a joint decision by presiding magistrate and assessors — Invalidity of judgment where presiding magistrate acts unilaterally — Quashing of Primary Court and District Court decisions — Remittal for proper judgment or de novo hearing.
|
10 October 1996 |
|
Appeal allowed because the wrong legal entity was sued; proceedings and judgment declared null and void.
Employment law – employer identification by contract and termination documents; Government programmes – lack of independent legal personality; Civil procedure – wrong party sued; nullity of proceedings and judgment ab initio.
|
2 October 1996 |
| September 1996 |
|
|
Acquittal upheld where inconsistent, unreliable prosecution evidence created reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Appeal against acquittal – evaluation of witness credibility; inconsistent dates and identification (serial numbers) undermining prosecution case; reasonable doubt and acquittal upheld.
|
30 September 1996 |
|
Whether the appellant acquired title by adverse possession when her mother lived on church land as an invitee.
Land law – title disputes – invitee vs owner – an invitee cannot acquire title by adverse possession; adverse possession requires proof of exclusive, continuous and adverse possession; credibility of oral witnesses determinative in competing historical accounts; remedy for improvements on land belonging to another (removal or compensation).
|
27 September 1996 |
|
Invitee status does not establish adverse possession; appellant cannot inherit church land but may remove or be compensated for building materials.
Land law – ownership dispute – purchase by church and invitation to occupy; adverse possession – invitee status and requirements for acquiring title; credibility of witnesses; remedy limited to removal or valuation of building materials (value assessed as of date of deceased's death).
|
27 September 1996 |
|
Invitee status defeats claim of title by adverse possession; church's purchase upheld and appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law — adverse possession — an invitee cannot acquire title by mere long occupation; credibility of witnesses and proof of purchase determine ownership; remedy limited to removal or valuation of building materials.
|
27 September 1996 |
|
Primary Court’s failure to deliver a joint judgment vitiated the decision; District Court appeal quashed and appeal allowed on merits.
Primary Courts — Requirement for a joint judgment of the court under Rule 3 of the Magistrate Courts (Primary Courts) (Judgement of Court) Rules, 1987; Role of assessors — must participate in a collective decision not merely advise; Procedural irregularity — improper judgment vitiates trial court's decision; Appeal — appellate court cannot confirm or vary where originating judgment is null; Property law — sale of house includes the plot (quicquid plantator solo, solo cedit).
|
20 September 1996 |
|
A Primary Court judgment is void where the presiding magistrate substitutes his personal opinion for the required collective judgment with assessors.
* Civil procedure – Primary Courts – Requirement that the judgment of a Primary Court be a joint exercise of the members of the court (presiding magistrate and assessors) under Rule 3.
* Magistrates – Duty to consult assessors and not substitute a personal opinion for the court’s judgment; sub‑rule 5 – prohibition on summing up in lieu of consultation.
* Irregularity – Failure to deliver proper judgment renders Primary Court decision null and void.
* Appeals – District Court cannot lawfully confirm, vary or reverse where there is no proper trial court judgment.
* Property law – Sale of house with land; quicquid plantatur solo solo cedit (what is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil) relevant to respondent’s lack of cause of action.
|
20 September 1996 |
|
Conviction for receiving stolen property overturned where mere knowledge of luggage in the house did not prove receipt or possession.
Criminal law – Receiving stolen property – Proof required that accused received or had control/possession – Mere knowledge that luggage was stored in accused’s house insufficient – Conviction unsafe where tribunal misdirected in evaluating evidence.
|
17 September 1996 |
|
Appellate court refused to quash acquittal or allow fresh witnesses after trial; acquittal upheld and no costs awarded.
Criminal law – Acquittal – Whether appellate court may order retrial to permit calling additional witnesses omitted at trial – Improper to reopen evidence after acquittal to plug prosecution’s weaknesses – Doubt benefits the accused – Vexatious successive prosecutions.
|
13 September 1996 |
|
Appeal dismissed where evidence established misappropriation by agent and defence failed to raise reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Stealing by agent (s.273(b) Penal Code) – Proof of misappropriation of entrusted property – Credibility and insufficiency of defence witness evidence – Appeal against conviction and conditional discharge sentence.
|
10 September 1996 |
|
|
10 September 1996 |
|
The appellant must refund the respondent's vehicle-hire costs incurred after the appellant breached a supply contract, with interest.
* Contract law – breach of contract – failure to deliver agreed goods (bananas) – liability to repay costs incurred as a consequence of breach.
* Damages/remedies – recovery of expenses incurred to obtain police assistance due to contractual breach.
* Interest – award of interest on refunded amount from specific date until payment.
|
10 September 1996 |
|
Appellant must refund expenses incurred from respondent due to contract breach, with interest; appeal dismissed.
* Contract law – breach of contract – liability to reimburse expenses incurred to secure police assistance and transport due to breach – award of interest on refunded sum.
|
10 September 1996 |
|
|
10 September 1996 |
|
|
10 September 1996 |
|
A succeeding magistrate may properly continue trial without recalling witnesses where records are intact; possession of stolen timber upheld conviction.
Criminal law – Theft of timber – Successor magistrate continuing trial after original magistrate’s death – No obligation to recall witnesses where record intact and no factual controversy – Possession of complainant’s timber as corroboration – Ownership defence by permit insufficient to raise reasonable doubt.
|
7 September 1996 |
|
Primary court judgment invalid where magistrate improperly treated assessors as advisers; resulting judgments quashed; appellant may sue village government anew.
Magistrates (Primary Courts) (Judgement of Court) Rules (G.N. No.2 of 1988) — Rule 3 — requirement that judgment be a joint exercise of presiding magistrate and assessors; invalidity of judgment where magistrate treats assessors as mere advisers by summing up then seeking opinions and delivering own decision; remedy — nullification and quashing of primary and appellate decisions; wrong defendant — village government v. individual sued in personal capacity.
|
6 September 1996 |
|
Primary court’s failure to decide jointly with assessors renders its judgment void; appeal quashed; suit named wrong defendant.
Primary Courts — Judgement of Court Rules (G.N. No. 2 of 1988) — Rule 3 — assessors must jointly decide with presiding magistrate; failure to do so renders judgment void. Appeals — appellate court cannot uphold or vary where trial court produced no lawful judgment. Proper party — suits against village government must name the correct corporate/official entity, not the chairman personally.
|
6 September 1996 |
|
|
6 September 1996 |
|
Interlocutory restraint order quashed because the Regional Housing Tribunal was improperly constituted, rendering its order ultra vires.
* Rent Restriction Act – s.11 composition of Regional Housing Tribunal – requirement of chairman plus two lay members – jurisdictional defect where Tribunal sat with chairman and only one lay member.
* Civil procedure – interlocutory order – ultra vires and null where issued by improperly constituted tribunal.
* Right to work – interlocutory restraint affecting business quashed where tribunal lacked statutory authority.
* Choice of remedies – respondent entitled to pursue civil suit despite existing criminal conviction, but must proceed before properly constituted forum.
|
4 September 1996 |
|
Appellants' convictions upheld on corroborated evidence; six-year burglary sentence quashed and substituted with five years concurrent.
* Criminal law – Burglary and stealing – Convictions sustained where accomplice evidence corroborated by police discovery and documentary indicia. * Sentencing – Manifestly excessive and unlawful sentence varied on appeal; substitution of concurrent sentence.
|
3 September 1996 |
| August 1996 |
|
|
Appellate court upheld arson conviction, rejected alibi for material inconsistencies, and ordered compensation to the victim.
* Criminal law – Arson – sufficiency of evidence – credibility of alibi and eyewitness identification.
* Evidence – assessment of contradictions in alibi testimony (dates, tickets) and inferences from conduct (flight).
* Sentencing – appellate review; sentence of five years upheld as not excessive.
* Compensation – court may order compensation for property destroyed by crime where trial court failed to do so.
|
27 August 1996 |
|
Alibi inconsistencies and eyewitness testimony justified upholding the appellant's arson conviction and awarding compensation to the victim.
* Criminal law – Arson – Credibility of alibi evidence – Material discrepancies and corroborating facts may justify rejection of an alibi.
* Evidence – Eyewitness identification and flight – Observations of presence at scene and running away support guilty inference.
* Sentencing – Five-year sentence for arson upheld as not excessive.
* Remedies – Victim compensation for destroyed property may be ordered on conviction.
|
27 August 1996 |
|
Appellant’s conflicting explanations were held to be lies evidencing guilt; conviction and sentence affirmed, appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Theft – Presence with stolen property – Inconsistent explanations by accused treated as ‘‘desperate lies’’ indicating guilty mind; witness credibility and trial court’s findings upheld on appeal.
|
27 August 1996 |
|
Confessions, reliable identifications and possession of stolen property sustain armed robbery convictions; corporal punishment reduced.
Criminal law – admissibility of cautioned/confessional statements; claims of torture; identification parades and eyewitness identification; corroboration by possession of stolen property; conspiracy and armed robbery; sentencing and corporal punishment.
|
27 August 1996 |
|
Confessions, reliable identifications, and recovered property upheld convictions; corporal punishment reduced from 24 to 6 strokes.
Criminal law – admissibility of cautioned confessions – allegations of torture; Identification parades – fairness and reliability of visual identification; Corroboration by recovery of stolen property; Right to legal representation – waiver and adjournments; Sentence – appropriateness of long imprisonment and reduction of corporal punishment.
|
27 August 1996 |
|
Applicant proved adultery by credible eyewitness evidence; trial court's award of ten cows (or value) restored, District Court reversed.
Adultery – proof by eyewitnesses; assessment of credibility of direct evidence; appellate review of factual findings; restoration of trial court judgment.
|
23 August 1996 |
|
Failure to conduct a voir dire does not automatically invalidate child testimony when medical and circumstantial corroboration exist.
* Evidence — Child witness — failure to conduct voir dire under s.127 Evidence Act reduces weight but does not automatically invalidate testimony.
* Corroboration — medical report (PF3) showing defilement and gonorrhea can corroborate tender child’s evidence.
* Confession and contemporaneous sequence of events — relevant to establish identity of perpetrator.
* Criminal appeal — conviction and minimum sentence for defilement upheld where totality of evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
20 August 1996 |
|
Absence of a voir dire does not automatically invalidate a tender child's testimony; medical and circumstantial corroboration may sustain conviction.
Evidence — Evidence Act s.127 — voir dire — tender child testimony — non‑compliance with voir dire reduces testimony to tender‑child status requiring corroboration; medical PF3s (gonorrhoea) and circumstantial/res gestae facts may supply corroboration — conviction for defilement sustained. Criminal law — defilement — sufficiency of corroboration — sentence lawfully minimum prescribed.
|
20 August 1996 |
|
Appeal dismissed: conviction for cattle theft affirmed based on recent possession and credible eyewitness evidence.
* Criminal law – cattle theft – proof by recent possession – recovery after 14 days and over 150 miles supports inference of guilt; credibility of eyewitness and undercover recovery operation upheld.
|
20 August 1996 |
|
Recent possession of stolen cattle traced far from theft location upheld conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Criminal law – cattle theft – recent possession doctrine – possession 14 days after theft and 150 miles from theft scene held sufficiently recent; eyewitness and trap operation evidence establishing possession and intent to sell; escape attempt as corroboration of guilt.
|
20 August 1996 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification of stolen property and alleged recent possession were unreliable.
Criminal law – Evidence – Identification of stolen property – Need for prior description or distinguishing marks; Recent possession – long lapse and small quantity not supporting inference of guilt; Conviction unsafe where identification and possession evidence are defective.
|
19 August 1996 |
|
A trial court judgment delivered without proper compliance with rules on assessors is a nullity and must be quashed and remitted.
Primary/Trial court procedure — requirement for lawful judgment — role and opinions of assessors — failure to deliver proper judgment renders decision a nullity — appeal founded on nullity quashed and record remitted for proper judgment — costs: parties to bear own costs.
|
14 August 1996 |
|
|
13 August 1996 |
|
Cohabitation as concubines does not create marital status or entitlement to maintenance or matrimonial property.
* Family law – Cohabitation/concubinage – Whether cohabitation confers marital status for maintenance or division of property – Presumption of marriage not established by concubinage.
* Maintenance law – Entitlement to maintenance requires legal basis such as marriage or statutory provision properly applied.
* Civil appeals – Appellate courts’ misapplication of statutory provisions can be quashed and set aside.
|
13 August 1996 |
|
|
13 August 1996 |
|
Cohabiting as concubines does not create entitlement to maintenance or matrimonial property division absent presumption of marriage or evidence.
* Family law – Concubinage – Whether cohabiting concubines are entitled to maintenance or division of ‘matrimonial’ property under s.60(2) of the Marriage Act 1971 – Presumption of marriage and evidentiary requirements for recognizing a relationship as matrimonial.
|
13 August 1996 |
|
Cohabitation as concubines does not give rise to a presumption of marriage or entitle a partner to maintenance/matrimonial property under the Marriage Act.
* Family law – Cohabitation vs marriage – Presumption of marriage – Whether cohabitation as concubines raises a presumption of marriage under the Marriage Act.* Family law – Maintenance and matrimonial property – Applicability of statutory provisions where no marriage exists or is presumed.* Civil appeal – Appellate interference – Whether first appellate court erred in substituting its view absent the requisite legal foundation.
|
13 August 1996 |