|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2004 |
|
|
Conviction for theft by agent quashed where prosecution failed to prove stealing beyond reasonable doubt amid inconsistencies and hearsay.
Criminal law – Stealing by agent – burden of proof – inconsistencies in prosecution evidence – inadmissible hearsay – civil creditor–debtor arrangement vs criminal mens rea.
|
17 December 2004 |
|
Confession evidence excluded for statutory breaches and coercion; accused discharged.
Criminal procedure – admissibility of confessions – voluntariness – prolonged detention and intimidation – statutory interview periods (Criminal Procedure Act 1985, ss.50–51) – status of Honorary District Magistrate vis‑à‑vis Justice of the Peace (Magistrates Courts Act 1984).
|
15 December 2004 |
|
Convictions quashed where trial record lacked arrest, seizure and caution-statement compliance; retrial ordered under a new magistrate.
* Criminal procedure – adequacy of trial record – requirements for convictions to rest on unequivocal facts. * Evidence – cautions/confessions – whether statements were read to accused and compliance with s.127 Evidence Act, 1967. * Chain of custody – proof of arrest and seizure circumstances for exhibits. * Remedy – convictions quashed and retrial ordered where material procedural and evidentiary gaps exist.
|
14 December 2004 |
|
Conviction quashed where trial court improperly relied on withdrawn witness evidence and identification of stolen property was doubtful.
Criminal procedure – withdrawal of charge and substituted charge – necessity to recall witnesses; reliance on withdrawn testimony is incurable irregularity; identification of stolen property – sufficiency and corroboration; doctrine of recent possession – inapplicability where item changed hands and long lapse; standard of proof – beyond reasonable doubt.
|
7 December 2004 |
|
Inconsistent evidence and a repayment agreement undermined prosecution’s proof of stealing by agent; conviction quashed.
Criminal law – Stealing by agent (s.273(b)) – burden of proof – credibility and inconsistencies – hearsay – contractual repayment and mortgage undermining mens rea – civil remedy versus criminal liability.
|
7 December 2004 |
| November 2004 |
|
|
A district court cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction over proceedings already determined on appeal.
Magistrates' Courts Act s.24 and s.22(2); appellate versus revisional jurisdiction; functus officio; revision inadmissible after determination of appeal; ultra vires exercise of jurisdiction.
|
16 November 2004 |
|
Conviction for grievous harm quashed where victim’s in-court account indicated accidental burn and supporting evidence was hearsay and inconsistent.
Criminal law – Sufficiency of evidence – Conviction quashed where victim's in-court account indicated accidental injury and third‑party reports were hearsay and inconsistent; child witness competency and hearsay issues.
|
5 November 2004 |
| October 2004 |
|
|
Child's credible testimony and medical evidence sufficiently corroborated to uphold conviction for unnatural offence; sentence reduced to 30 years.
Criminal law – Unnatural offence (carnal knowledge against the order of nature) – Child complainant’s competence and credibility – Requirement of corroboration – Medical evidence and quick reporting as circumstantial corroboration – Sentence review and reduction.
|
25 October 2004 |
|
|
25 October 2004 |
|
Conviction for giving false information quashed where prosecution failed to produce documents and prove authorship beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Offence of giving false information to a public officer (s.122(b) Penal Code) – burden of proof – necessity to produce primary documents and avoid reliance on hearsay.
* Evidence – authorship of complaint letters – failure to produce document and showing that accused wrote letter at complainant’s request undermines prosecution case.
* Appeal – where prosecution declines to support conviction and evidence is insufficient, conviction must be quashed and accused discharged.
|
25 October 2004 |
|
Appeal allowed; conviction for giving false information quashed due to insufficient evidence and failure to prove appellant authored false complaint.
* Criminal law – s.122(b) Penal Code – giving false information to public officer – necessity of proof beyond reasonable doubt; * Evidence – authorship and production of documentary evidence; failure to produce critical letter undermines prosecution; * Appeal – effect of State declining to support conviction; * Remedy – quashing conviction and discharging accused when prosecution fails to prove case.
|
25 October 2004 |
|
Appellant's conviction for wrongful issue of counterfeit US$ notes upheld; three-year sentence reduced to immediate discharge as manifestly excessive.
* Criminal law – Forgery/Counterfeit currency – Wrongful issue of notes (s352(b) Penal Code) – Possession of counterfeit US$100 notes recovered on person after police search as sufficient evidential basis for conviction; * Criminal procedure – Credibility and circumstantial evidence – co-accused absconding does not necessarily vitiate case against accused; * Sentencing – Manifestly excessive sentence – three years custodial term reduced to immediate discharge given small amount involved.
|
25 October 2004 |
|
Appellant’s admissions made procedural defects immaterial; appeal against armed robbery conviction dismissed and sentence upheld.
Criminal law – armed robbery conviction; appellate review of credibility findings; admission by accused as proof of possession; absence of search warrant immaterial where accused admits ownership; failure to call guest-house staff or other lodgers not fatal to prosecution case.
|
25 October 2004 |
|
Appeal dismissed: credible child testimony and the accused’s admission upheld conviction for unnatural offence.
* Criminal law – Sexual offences – Unnatural offence (carnal knowledge of a child) – Evidence of child of tender years and cautionary approach.
* Corroboration – Medical evidence of bruising and fluid substances as supporting evidence.
* Confession/admission – Admission to community leader as evidential support.
* Fair trial – Complaint about absence during medical examination and inability to call witnesses.
|
25 October 2004 |
|
A qualified guilty plea asserting necessity requires proof; prosecution’s refusal to support conviction warrants quashing the conviction.
Criminal law – Unlawful possession of liquor (s.3(1) Act No.62 of 1996) – Qualified plea – Defence of necessity – Plea qualification requires proof – Prosecution may decline to support conviction.
|
22 October 2004 |
|
Appellant's conviction for giving false information quashed where prosecution failed to prove his culpability for the disputed letter.
* Criminal law – Giving false information to public officer – proof beyond reasonable doubt – where disputed complaint letter was written at a third party's request.* Evidence – non-production of documentary evidence (letter) undermining prosecution case.* Criminal appeal – prosecution declines to support conviction; conviction quashed for insufficient evidence.
|
15 October 2004 |
| September 2004 |
|
|
Equivocal plea did not establish grievous harm; conviction substituted to unlawful wounding and appellant immediately discharged.
Criminal law – Plea of guilty – Equivocal plea – Plea must establish all elements of charged offence – Grievous harm requires proof of specific injurious elements; absence of medical or factual evidence precludes conviction – Appropriate substitution to unlawful wounding – Sentence manifestly excessive and reduced.
|
27 September 2004 |
|
Possession shortly after theft plus corroborated caution statements sustain convictions for receiving stolen property.
* Criminal law – Receiving stolen property – possession shortly after theft and exclusive control of premises as evidence of knowledge; corroboration of caution statements; accomplice evidence – need for warning but corroboration may suffice.
|
17 September 2004 |
|
A land-ownership dispute is civil, not criminal; trespass conviction quashed and fine ordered restituted.
* Criminal law – trespass – where dispute centres on title/ownership of land, the issue is civil not criminal – criminal conviction inappropriate.* Prosecution conduct – Republic may decline to support conviction where matter is civil in nature.* Restitution – fine to be refunded where conviction quashed.
|
13 September 2004 |
|
|
10 September 2004 |
|
|
3 September 2004 |
|
Revision dismissed where delay was unexplained and requisite court records had been destroyed by fire.
Revisional jurisdiction – Magistrates' Courts Act s.22 – requirement of existing record for revision – delay and laches – destruction of court records by fire – impracticability of revision where records absent.
|
2 September 2004 |
| August 2004 |
|
|
Uncorroborated prosecution evidence and failure to call a key witness undermined the convictions against the appellants.
Criminal law – burden of proof; credibility and corroboration of prosecution witnesses; joint charge and common intention; failure to call important witness; defence evidence raising reasonable doubt – convictions quashed.
|
25 August 2004 |
|
Acquittal where circumstantial suspicion failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused threw his lame child into the river.
* Criminal law – Murder – Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence – Whether suspicion and circumstantial facts prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a capital offence. * Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Need to exclude reasonable alternative hypotheses before convicting. * Burden of proof – Benefit of reasonable doubt to accused.
|
24 August 2004 |
|
Conviction quashed where an ambiguous document, disputed thumb‑print and inconsistent witness evidence made the prosecution case unsafe.
Criminal law — Obtaining money by false pretences — Admissibility and sufficiency of documentary evidence — Ambiguous written agreement; disputed thumb‑print requiring expert proof; inconsistent witness testimony and absent corroboration render conviction unsafe.
|
23 August 2004 |
|
Conviction quashed where a disputed sale document and inconsistent, uncorroborated witness evidence failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Evidence – Documentary evidence: admissibility and authenticity of disputed sale agreement; requirement that prosecution prove disputed thumb-print/mark (expert evidence) – Corroboration: independent, consistent evidence required to connect accused to offence – Inconsistent witness statements undermine prosecution case – Conviction unsafe where material documents and testimony are unproved.
|
23 August 2004 |
|
|
23 August 2004 |
|
|
16 August 2004 |
|
Delay in obtaining a judgment copy does not excuse failure to lodge the initial ten-day notice of intention to appeal.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to appeal – distinction between notice of intention to appeal (ten days) and filing memorandum of appeal (forty-five days); time for obtaining copies excluded only when computing forty-five days; delay in receiving judgment does not excuse failure to lodge the initial notice; proviso for late appeals requires good cause such as unsustainable conviction or fatal procedural irregularity.
|
16 August 2004 |
|
Locking watchmen to facilitate stealing without force is not robbery; conviction reduced to theft and immediate discharge.
Criminal law — Robbery v. theft — elements of violence or threat under s.285 — locking watchmen to facilitate theft does not constitute violence or threat; voluntariness of leading police to recovered property — admissibility despite absence of cautioned statement; warrantless search treated as afterthought where recovery was voluntary.
|
16 August 2004 |
|
Appellate court quashed rape conviction where prosecution failed to prove complainant’s age and evidence was inconclusive.
* Criminal law – Rape allegedly based on complainant’s minority – prosecution must prove age beyond reasonable doubt by reliable evidence. * Medical evidence (spermatozoa, bruising, hymen rupture) not conclusive of non-consensual intercourse. * Credibility and unexplained gaps in complainant’s testimony may vitiate prosecution case. * Prosecution bears onus; trial court must not shift burden to accused.
|
16 August 2004 |
|
Conviction based on a repudiated police confession and uncorroborated accomplice evidence is unsafe and set aside.
Criminal law – Admission of caution/confession statements – Accused’s repudiation of confession – Prosecution’s duty to prove voluntariness; need for trial-within-a-trial. Criminal evidence – Accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration before it can sustain conviction.
|
16 August 2004 |
|
Armed robbery conviction quashed because identification evidence was unreliable and unsafe.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – conviction based on visual identification only – dangers of dock or post-arrest identification – need for prompt, reliable identification procedures; * Identification evidence – safe proof requires proper safeguards and, where absent, conviction may be quashed; * Appeal – prosecution declining to support conviction due to weak evidence supports allowing appeal.
|
16 August 2004 |
|
Conviction unsafe where repudiated confession was admitted without trial-within-trial and accomplice evidence lacked corroboration.
* Evidence — Confession/caution statement: voluntariness; onus on prosecution to prove voluntariness; trial-within-a-trial required where confession repudiated. * Evidence — Accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration before it may sustain conviction. * Criminal appeal — conviction unsafe when based on an unproven confession and uncorroborated accomplice testimony.
|
13 August 2004 |
|
Convictions quashed where court clerk lacked authority to dismiss proceedings and the trap evidence was unreliable.
Prevention of Corruption Act s.3(1) – scope of offence – requirement of authority to influence official acts; evidential sufficiency of police 'trap' operations; credibility and management of marked-money operations; alternative offences (theft/obtaining by false pretences) where primary offence unsustainable; omnibus/counting irregularities.
|
11 August 2004 |
|
First appellant's unequivocal guilty plea upheld; second appellant's convictions quashed due to unreliable/improperly admitted evidence.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Plea of guilty – When a plea is unequivocal after hearing evidence it may sustain conviction. * Criminal procedure – Admissibility of evidence – Hearsay testimony and improperly obtained caution statements may render conviction unsafe. * Appeal – Crown declining to support conviction – appellate disposal by quashing convictions and setting aside sentences.
|
11 August 2004 |
|
Unequivocal guilty pleas sustain conviction; convictions based on hearsay or tortured confessions are unsafe and quashed.
* Criminal law – armed robbery – effect of unequivocal guilty plea entered after hearing incriminating evidence.
* Evidence – hearsay – statements based on an uncalled third party cannot safely ground conviction.
* Evidence – confessions – alleged extraction by torture and improper admission render confession unreliable and the conviction unsafe.
* Remedy – quashing convictions and setting aside sentences where prosecutions rely on inadmissible or discredited evidence.
|
11 August 2004 |
|
An agent’s conversion of entrusted funds constitutes theft even if the agent claims intent to repay.
* Criminal law – theft by agent – conversion of funds entrusted to an agent; * Section 258(2)(e) Penal Code – fraudulent conversion constitutes stealing even if repayment intended; * Evidence – agency relationship and failure to account; * Appeal – extraneous trial findings noted but conviction sustained; * Sentence – within statutory limits.
|
10 August 2004 |
|
Criminal trespass proceedings quashed because an unresolved civil dispute over land ownership must be decided first.
Criminal law – Criminal trespass – Where ownership of land is disputed, criminal courts should not try title; ownership must be determined in civil proceedings first – Untested written document cannot be treated as conclusive under s.123 Evidence Act.
|
10 August 2004 |
| July 2004 |
|
|
Village failed to prove re‑acquisition; respondent’s uncontradicted purchase established lawful title.
Land law – abandonment and prescription – proof required for re‑acquisition by village; necessity of documentary evidence (letters, village minutes, Land Office records) – credibility of oral testimony – validity of sale by deceased owner’s family and effect on title.
|
30 July 2004 |
|
Conviction on a defective alternative count lacking proof of the underlying felony and required elements is null and void.
Criminal law – alternative counts – defective statement of offence – necessity to prove elements of s.383 (knowledge and failure to use reasonable means to prevent a felony) – acquittal on primary count undermines conviction on alternative count – insufficiency of evidence of breaking and theft renders neglect-to-prevent conviction unsustainable.
|
2 July 2004 |
|
Appellate court quashed robbery conviction due to unreliable identification and insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the offence.
Criminal law – Robbery – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Identification evidence – Necessity of identification parade or clear descriptive identification where suspect is a stranger – Recovery of stolen property insufficient without reliable identification – Failure to call corroborating witness undermines prosecution case.
|
2 July 2004 |
| June 2004 |
|
|
Applicant failed to show good cause to extend time for appeal; procedural filings were not properly registered.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to file appeal – applicant must show good cause; uncorroborated assertions by prisoner insufficient; Chamber Summons and application for review must be properly filed and registered; s.361( a ) does not require written notice of appeal.
|
25 June 2004 |
|
Application for extension of time to appeal refused for lack of corroborating evidence and no prospects of success.
Extension of time to appeal – requirement to show sufficient cause – affidavit explanations must be corroborated by relevant officials (prison/medical) – court will consider prospects of success before granting enlargement.
|
22 June 2004 |
|
Presence of counsel at judgment delivery negates distance excuse; no good cause shown to extend time to appeal.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to appeal under s.361 CPA – requirement to give notice of appeal within ten days – learned counsel present at delivery of judgment negates distance/consultation excuse; pleadings must specify whether relief sought under s.361(a) or (b); merits of conviction do not excuse delay.
|
18 June 2004 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction unsafe where theft was not proved and accomplice evidence plus a retracted confession lacked corroboration.
Criminal law – Theft from motor vehicle – insufficiency of evidence – reliance on accomplice testimony and retracted confession without corroboration – failure to establish time/place of theft.
|
16 June 2004 |
|
Guilty pleas abandoned the leave-to-appeal application; sentence reduced to five years under the Minimum Sentences Act.
Criminal procedure – guilty plea and abandonment of appeal application – sentencing – effect of guilty plea as mitigating factor – interaction with Minimum Sentences Act (Act No.1/1972) – substitution of sentence to statutory minimum under s5(d) and s296(1) Penal Code.
|
15 June 2004 |
|
Applicants’ guilty pleas led to withdrawal of appeal; court reduced sentence to statutory five-year minimum.
Criminal law – plea of guilty – effect on right to appeal / abandonment of appeal; Sentencing – mitigation and mercy – constraints of the Minimum Sentences Act (Act No.1/1972) and section 296(1) Penal Code; Sentence reduction/substitution on appeal.
|
15 June 2004 |
|
Unsupported and afterthought assertions failed to justify leave to appeal out of time under section 361.
* Criminal procedure – Leave to appeal out of time – Section 361 CPA 1985 – Applicant must show good and sufficient reasons for delay – oral notifications must be evidenced or recorded; unsupported averments or afterthoughts insufficient.
|
8 June 2004 |
|
An equivocal guilty plea unsupported by adequate facts renders a conviction unsafe and warrants quashing and fresh plea-taking.
Criminal law – guilty plea – clarity and sufficiency of factual basis; Evidence – requirement to biologically verify alleged spermatozoa and link to accused; Right to fair trial – opportunity to defend and cross-examine; Appeal – limits under section 361(1) do not prevent court scrutinising whether a plea is unequivocal and supported by facts.
|
8 June 2004 |