|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1992 |
|
|
Res judicata does not bar a land claim where a prior judgment concerned different parties and separate sub‑parcels; long possession prevailed.
* Civil procedure – res judicata – prior judgment between different parties does not bar subsequent suit by another occupier of a separate sub‑parcel within same larger holding. * Land law – possession and proof of gift from original owner – long occupation supports title/possession claim. * Evidence – assessment of credibility and historical occupation relevant to land disputes.
|
8 December 1992 |
|
Appeal dismissed: enticement claim fails where plaintiff’s failure to maintain wife justified her leaving; lower magistrate erred in making unsupported factual finding.
Family law – enticement of spouse – Law of Marriage Act 1971, s.73(1)-(2); justification for spouse leaving matrimonial home (failure to maintain). Procedure – appellate review – Magistrate’s factual finding without evidence; obligation to invoke s.21(1)(a) Magistrates Courts Act 1984 to receive further evidence.
|
8 December 1992 |
|
Appeal against robbery-with-violence conviction dismissed where eyewitness identification and evidence of force were reliable.
* Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Elements proved where money was forcibly taken and accused threatened victims with weapons (panga and iron rod).
* Evidence – Identification – Reliability where appellant was known to witnesses and incident occurred in adequate light; no mistaken identity shown.
* Appeal – Reappraisal of credibility – Appellate court will not interfere where trial court's findings are supported by evidence.
|
8 December 1992 |
|
Convictions quashed where prosecution failed to prove knowledge of stolen property and failed to rebut an unchallenged alibi.
Criminal law – receiving stolen property – knowledge or reason to believe property stolen must be proved; Criminal procedure – alibi – prosecution must call material evidence to rebut an alibi; failure to do so undermines conviction.
|
7 December 1992 |
|
Convictions quashed where prosecution failed to prove knowledge of stolen property and did not rebut the accused’s alibi.
Criminal law – Burglary and theft convictions – Insufficient evidence of knowledge of stolen property for receiving offence – Failure to call crucial witness and to rebut accused’s alibi – Convictions unsafe and quashed.
|
7 December 1992 |
|
Appeals allowed and convictions quashed due to insufficient evidence of knowledge of stolen property and an unchallenged alibi.
* Criminal law – Evidence – Receiving stolen property – Prosecution must prove property was stolen and accused knew or had reason to believe so.
* Criminal law – Burglary – Importance of calling material eyewitnesses and of rebutting an accused's alibi.
* Appeal – Convictions quashed where prosecution fails to prove essential elements or to challenge an uncontradicted alibi.
|
7 December 1992 |
|
Application to readmit a Primary Court appeal struck out for being brought under the wrong procedural code.
Civil procedure – Appeals from Primary Courts – Civil Procedure Code inapplicable to Primary Court appeals – Civil Procedure (Appeals in Proceedings Originating in Primary Courts) Rules 1964 (GN 312 of 1964) – Rule 17 (re-admission of appeals dismissed in default) – Application misconceived when brought under wrong procedural provision – striking out.
|
7 December 1992 |
|
Identification by witnesses under lamp light supported conviction for manslaughter; sentence reduced for mitigation.
Criminal law – identification evidence – recognition by witnesses under kerosene lamp and corroboration by distinctive clothing; Criminal law – unlawful killing – distinction between murder and manslaughter where killing occurs in the course of a spontaneous fight and under influence of alcohol; Sentence – mitigation for first offender, time in custody, ill-health and dependants.
|
4 December 1992 |
| November 1992 |
|
|
Court set aside a defective District Court consent order and upheld Primary Court’s repayment order after finding the buyer caused the non‑delivery.
Contract — Sale for work and materials — Failure to deliver — Burden of proof on claimant rejecting goods; Civil procedure — Consent/settlement recorded in court — requirement to record what parties said accurately; Appeal — appellate review of findings of fact and defective recording of proceedings.
|
30 November 1992 |
|
Landlord–tenant disputes fall within the Regional Housing Tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction; lower courts’ proceedings were quashed.
* Landlord and tenant – jurisdiction – disputes concerning landlord–tenant relationship vested in Regional Housing Tribunal under Rent Restriction Act, 1984 – proceedings in ordinary courts quashed for want of jurisdiction.
|
24 November 1992 |
|
Whether landlord–tenant disputes fall exclusively within the Regional Housing Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Rent Restriction Act 1984.
* Landlord and tenant law – dispute arising from lessee completing premises and seeking set-off of expenses against rent.
* Jurisdiction – Rent Restriction Act 1984 vests jurisdiction over landlord–tenant disputes in the Regional Housing Tribunal.
* Competence of lower courts – Primary and District Courts have no jurisdiction where statute confers exclusive jurisdiction on Regional Housing Tribunal.
* Remedy – proceedings in courts lacking jurisdiction are quashed; parties may proceed before the competent tribunal or court.
|
24 November 1992 |
|
Appellant’s long acquiescence and witnesses’ testimony supported respondent’s ownership; appeal dismissed with costs.
Land dispute – ownership of village shamba – credibility of oral evidence and village chairman’s testimony – acquiescence and conduct as undermining ownership claims – admissibility and production of documents on appeal.
|
16 November 1992 |
|
Primary Court proceedings were quashed as a nullity for failing to follow mandatory rules on assessors’ consultation and judgment signing.
Magistrates’ Courts (Primary Courts) (Judgment of Court) Rules, 1987 — Role of assessors — Prohibition on magistrate “summing up” to assessors (Rule 3(3)) — Requirement to record and sign majority/dissenting decisions (Rule 3(2), Rule 4) — Non‑compliance renders Primary Court proceedings a nullity — Order for hearing de novo.
|
10 November 1992 |
| June 1992 |
|
|
|
19 June 1992 |
|
|
18 June 1992 |
| April 1992 |
|
|
|
10 April 1992 |
|
|
10 April 1992 |
|
|
9 April 1992 |
| March 1992 |
|
|
Primary court's finding that respondent's cattle damaged appellant's crops was restored; appeal allowed and costs awarded.
Civil liability for damage by animals – suitability and sufficiency of oral testimony identifying ownership – appellate interference with primary findings of fact – failure to adduce rebutting evidence (herder) justifies restoration of trial court verdict.
|
10 March 1992 |