|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1989 |
|
|
Theft conviction and five-year sentence upheld; escape conviction and one-year sentence quashed for lack of lawful summary sentencing power.
* Criminal law – theft – sufficiency of circumstantial and eyewitness evidence – identity established by shoe marks, greasy shoes and conduct (poisoning of watchman).
* Sentencing – five-year term upheld given value of stolen property (150,000/=) and surrounding circumstances.
* Criminal procedure – summary conviction and sentencing by magistrate – no power to convict and sentence on the spot for ordinary offences without charge; section 114(2) Penal Code limited to contempt; arrest under s18 Criminal Procedure Act is proper procedure.
* Conviction for escaping lawful custody quashed for procedural illegality.
|
19 December 1989 |
| October 1989 |
|
|
A tax collector’s inconsistent robbery claims failed to rebut credible prosecution proof of theft; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – Theft by person in public service – Failure to remit public revenues – Credibility and consistency of accused’s statements – Absence of corroborative reports or evidence of broken safe – Appeal dismissed.
|
6 October 1989 |
| September 1989 |
|
|
Accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter; post‑mortem corroborated fatal blunt force injury and court sentenced him to 14 years imprisonment.
* Criminal law – Manslaughter (s.195 Penal Code) – guilty plea accepted where facts establish unlawful killing without intent to murder. * Evidence – post‑mortem corroboration of cause of death supports conviction. * Sentencing – deterrence and denunciation in violent assault cases warrant substantial custodial terms.
|
4 September 1989 |
| August 1989 |
|
|
Reported
Criminal Law - Theft - Admission - Admission of loss - Whether amounts to an admission of theft. |
18 August 1989 |
| July 1989 |
|
|
Reported
Family Law - Maintenance - Quantum - Factors to be taken into consideration when awarding maintenance. |
13 July 1989 |
|
Convictions quashed where prosecution failed to prove appellant’s possession or occupancy of premises containing stolen property.
* Criminal law – Burglary and stealing – proof of possession and occupancy – essential to establish that stolen items were found in accused’s possession or in a room occupied by accused.
* Evidence – failure of key witnesses (tenants) to testify – where occupancy not proved, convictions based on found property cannot be sustained.
* Appeal – where prosecution fails to prove essential facts and State does not support convictions, appellate court should quash convictions and set aside sentences.
|
11 July 1989 |
| June 1989 |
|
|
First accused convicted for theft due to custody and unexplained missing government gasket; second acquitted for lack of identification evidence.
* Criminal law – Theft by public servant – custody of store keys and unexplained disappearance of government property supports conviction.
* Criminal law – Receiving stolen property – prosecution must prove identity and ownership of the article beyond reasonable doubt; generic articles require specific marks or explanation of identification.
* Evidence – Identification evidence must show how witnesses recognized the specific article; bare assertions unacceptable.
|
26 June 1989 |
|
Possession of recently stolen property can justify conviction; a co-accused’s confession alone cannot convict others.
* Criminal law – possession of recently stolen property – inference of guilt where stolen item found in possession shortly after theft. * Evidence – confession by co-accused (s.33 Evidence Act) – cannot be sole basis for conviction of others; independent evidence required. * Arrest conduct – hiding or fleeing insufficient alone to prove participation in the principal offence.
|
19 June 1989 |
|
Possession of recently stolen goods and credible identification proved guilt; appellant’s explanation and appeal rejected.
Criminal law – Possession of recently stolen property – Identification of stolen goods – Circumstantial evidence and timing – Burden on accused to offer credible explanation or call witnesses – Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
|
14 June 1989 |
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentencing - Power to impose sentence less than the minimum prescribed - Valid reasons for imposing a lesser sentence - Disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence. |
14 June 1989 |
|
Appeal allowed where prosecution failed to identify stolen goods and to prove the accused received them beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Theft/shopbreaking and receiving stolen property – Requirement of positive identification of stolen goods and proof of link to accused beyond reasonable doubt. * Evidence – Reliance on uncorroborated testimony (tailor) is dangerous; corroboration required where identification and chain of possession are in issue. * Appeal – Convictions will be quashed where prosecution fails to exclude reasonable alternative explanations for possession of goods.
|
12 June 1989 |
| May 1989 |
|
|
Appellants’ known status to watchmen and recovery of stolen items sufficiently corroborated night-time identification; convictions upheld.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Night-time identification by watchmen who knew the suspects – Corroboration by recovery of stolen property – Whether identification and corroborative facts establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
9 May 1989 |
| April 1989 |
|
|
Accident occurrence alone insufficient for careless driving conviction; prosecution must prove negligence beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Careless driving – Proof of negligence – Occurrence of accident alone insufficient – prosecution must prove negligent act or omission beyond reasonable doubt. * Evidence – Police sketch and officer’s opinion made after accident – limited weight without supporting proof. * Evidence – Lay witness opinion – evidential value questionable if witnesses not present when scene was examined; such opinion should be objected to.
|
25 April 1989 |
|
Court held it lacked jurisdiction to try a First Schedule economic offence without required DPP certification and where monetary threshold not met.
* Criminal law – Economic and Organised Crime Act – First Schedule offences – jurisdictional preconditions – DPP certificate requirement and monetary-value threshold (Shs 1,000,000) – effect of statutory amendments on competence to try offences.
|
25 April 1989 |
|
Fraud by impersonation and false payment documents proved; conviction and five-year sentence for obtaining goods by false pretences upheld.
Criminal law – Obtaining goods by false pretences – Presentation of false invoices, cheques and payment vouchers – Impersonation of military officer – Credibility of prosecution witnesses – Appeal dismissed.
|
24 April 1989 |
|
Conviction on circumstantial evidence quashed where alternative explanations (access by duplicate keys) were not excluded.
Criminal law – Theft by servant – Circumstantial evidence – Sufficiency of proof – Duplicate keys and alternative hypotheses – Reasonable doubt – Conviction quashed.
|
20 April 1989 |
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Charges - Circumstancesfor
amending a charge.
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Bias - Determination ofbias on
the part ofthe trial magistrate. |
7 April 1989 |
| March 1989 |
|
|
The applicant’s appeal against conviction for theft of government cement was dismissed; trial court’s credibility findings and sentence upheld.
Criminal law – Theft by public officer/employee – Government property (cement) – Sufficiency and credibility of prosecution witnesses – Evidence that 258 bags of cement were loaded into lorry STC 718 and did not reach the Department – Appellate review of trial court’s findings of fact and sentence.
|
8 March 1989 |
|
Reported
Evidence - Witnesses - Number of witnesses required to prove a fact.
Criminal law - Alibi - Notice of intention to raise defence of alibi. |
6 March 1989 |
|
Appellants' rape convictions upheld: eyewitness identification and corroboration sufficient despite absence of medical findings.
Criminal law – Rape – Medical evidence not essential where credible identification and corroborative witness evidence establish non-consensual intercourse; identification by acquaintance in good lighting reliable; sentence affirmed.
|
3 March 1989 |
|
Conviction for unnatural offence upheld on strong medical and circumstantial evidence; sentence reduced to lawful five years.
Criminal law – Unnatural offence (sodomy) – Medical evidence (anal bruising and spermatozoa) and circumstantial evidence – sufficiency to convict; Sentencing – jurisdictional limits of district court – unlawful sentence reduced to statutory maximum on appeal.
|
1 March 1989 |
| February 1989 |
|
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Identification - Of stolen property by colour - Value of such evidence.
Criminal Law - Doctrine of recent possession - Its applicability.
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Judgment - Contents of - S.312(1) of Criminal Procedure Act, 1985. |
13 February 1989 |
|
Appeal allowed: insufficient credible evidence that appellant drove dangerously; convictions and sentences quashed.
Road traffic — Dangerous driving — Whether prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused drove dangerously — Reliability of eyewitness opinion evidence as to speed — Causal effect of tyre burst on overturning — Weight of sketch plan and inspection evidence.
|
10 February 1989 |
|
Reported
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Settlement out of court - Matters to be settled out of court - Whether burglary and stealing are matters capable of being settled out of court - S.163 of Criminal Procedure Act. |
9 February 1989 |
|
Conviction for abusive language upheld where evidence showed real likelihood of breach of the peace; sentence not excessive.
Criminal law – Abusive language (s.89(1)(c)) – Mere receipt of insult insufficient for conviction – conviction requires evidence of likelihood of breach of the peace or inclination to physical violence by recipient – sentence not excessive.
|
8 February 1989 |
|
Convictions for assault and malicious damage upheld; eyewitness identification and corroboration found sufficient.
* Criminal law – Identification – Eyewitness evidence where witnesses knew accused – sufficiency to identify perpetrator. * Criminal law – Assault causing actual bodily harm and malicious damage – corroboration and credibility of witnesses. * Evidence – Failure to call a potentially material witness not fatal where independent corroborative evidence exists. * Sentence – concurrent short-term imprisonment upheld as not excessive.
|
8 February 1989 |
|
Appeal dismissed: recent possession of stolen items and the accused’s implausible explanation justified convictions and upheld sentences.
* Criminal law – Burglary and theft – Recent possession of stolen property – Whether possession months after the offence can ground conviction – Doctrine of recent possession applicable where accused’s explanation is not credible.
* Evidence – Credibility – Accused’s inconsistent account and witness evidence supporting seizure – court may disbelieve accused’s explanation.
* Sentencing – Statutory minimum sentences – appellate intervention in sentence where sentence challenged.
|
6 February 1989 |
|
Arson conviction overturned because eyewitness identification was unreliable and unsupported by corroborative evidence.
Criminal law – Arson – Identification evidence – Night-time identification – Need for sufficient opportunity to observe and corroboration – Conviction unsafe where identification rests on belief, not reliable evidence.
|
3 February 1989 |
|
Appeal dismissed where complainant’s visual identification under electric light was held reliable and sentence was statutory minimum.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Visual identification evidence – Single witness identification – Reliability and exclusion of reasonable possibility of mistaken identity – Corroboration – Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
|
3 February 1989 |
| January 1989 |
|
|
Appeal dismissed: conviction for impersonating a policeman and obtaining money by false pretence upheld.
Criminal law – Personation of public officer; Obtaining money by false pretences – Evidence of inducement and identification; Flight as corroborative evidence; Sentence not excessive.
|
26 January 1989 |