|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 1990 |
|
|
A man named as father cannot deny paternity unless he proves he never had sexual intercourse with the mother.
Family law – Paternity presumption – Where a woman names a man as the father he cannot deny paternity unless he proves he never had sexual intercourse with her – Burden of proof – Maintenance order upheld.
|
27 November 1990 |
|
Identification evidence and recovery of stolen property supported convictions; procedural defects did not render convictions unsafe.
* Criminal law – housebreaking and theft – sufficiency and reliability of identification evidence – corroborative value of recovery of stolen property and extra‑judicial admissions.
* Criminal procedure – alleged defects in charge/particulars – whether procedural irregularities render conviction unsafe.
* Evidence – failure to call a witness – prejudice and miscarriage of justice.
* Sentencing – concurrent terms – assessment of excessiveness on appeal.
|
6 November 1990 |
| October 1990 |
|
|
Trial in absentia valid where accused absconded; absence alone does not nullify conviction if evidence and procedure suffice.
* Criminal procedure – trial in absence – where accused absconds or fails to appear through own conduct, court may proceed – section 226(1) Criminal Procedure Act.
* Right to a fair trial – absence of accused does not automatically vitiate trial if absence is self-caused and evidence supports conviction.
* Procedural irregularities – imperfections in judgment do not necessarily invalidate conviction where record evidence is credible and sufficient.
|
19 October 1990 |
|
A conviction based solely on a co‑accused's confession is unsafe without corroboration; second accused's forgery conviction upheld.
* Evidence — Confession of co‑accused — Conviction not to be based solely on another's confession — requirement of corroboration (s.33(1)).
* Forgery and uttering — presentation of forged cheque and obtaining money by false pretences — proved by circumstantial and direct evidence.
* Possession and theft — absence of evidence of possession undermines conviction for stealing.
|
18 October 1990 |
|
Appeal dismissed: identification and credibility findings upheld; alibi unproven and statutory minimum sentences affirmed.
* Criminal law – robbery with violence – identification evidence – reliability where complainants knew accused before offence and observed them at the scene.
* Criminal law – alibi – burden to produce supporting evidence – failure to substantiate alibi justifies rejection.
* Criminal procedure – appellate review – deference to trial court credibility findings.
* Sentencing – sentence affirmed as minimum prescribed by applicable statute.
|
18 October 1990 |
|
Conviction for school store theft upheld where identification and recent possession linked recovered maize to the theft.
Criminal law – burglary and theft – breaking and entering – identification of stolen goods by prosecution witnesses – pieces of chalk mixed with maize as identifying marks – recent possession doctrine – credibility of witnesses and acceptance of trial court findings.
|
16 October 1990 |
|
Appeal allowed: circumstantial and documentary evidence of forged cheques sufficed to overturn the second accused's acquittal and convict him.
Criminal law – fraud/conspiracy/uttering forged cheques – circumstantial and documentary evidence (bank records, cheque book gaps, signature identification) sufficient to overturn an acquittal on proof of participation or knowledge; appeal by DPP against acquittal.
|
15 October 1990 |
|
A voluntary confession to police corroborated by recovery of stolen property can sustain conviction; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal law – confession – voluntariness and admissibility of confession to police under Evidence Act. * Criminal law – co‑accused confession – conviction cannot rest solely on co‑accused’s confession; requires corroboration. * Evidence – recovery of stolen property as corroboration of confessions and identification. * Sentence – appellate interference only where manifestly excessive.
|
6 October 1990 |
|
Possession of a stolen cow’s skin and corroborative evidence of slaughter supported conviction for cattle theft; appeal dismissed.
Theft – possession of recently stolen property – identification of stolen cattle and recovery of carcass/skin as corroborative evidence; slaughter and sale of carcass as circumstance supporting irresistible inference of guilt; appellate review of credibility and sufficiency of evidence.
|
3 October 1990 |
| July 1990 |
|
|
Circumstantial and uncertain identification evidence failed to prove the accused guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Prosecution must prove facts incompatible with innocence and incapable of any explanation other than accused's guilt. * Evidence – Identification – Reliability affected by tall grass, different routes and potential mistaken or fabricated testimony. * Criminal procedure – Arrest on suspicion is insufficient basis for conviction.
|
17 July 1990 |
| May 1990 |
|
|
Appeal dismissed; conviction and five-year sentence for office-breaking and stealing upheld on overwhelming evidence.
Criminal law – Office-breaking and stealing – Sufficiency of evidence – Eyewitness identification and recovery/disposal of stolen property – Credibility assessment – Appeal against conviction and sentence.
|
11 May 1990 |
| April 1990 |
|
|
Missing postal funds established beyond reasonable doubt; postmaster credible and appellant’s explanation rejected, appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – theft/misappropriation of public/postal funds – evidential sufficiency of account books and postmaster’s testimony – credibility of accused’s explanation – appeal dismissed.
|
25 April 1990 |
|
Convictions based only on a co-accused’s confession, without independent corroboration, are unsafe and liable to be quashed.
Criminal law – convictions based solely on confession by co-accused – section 33(2) safeguards – necessity for independent corroborative evidence – failure by trial court to consider statutory caution renders conviction unsafe.
|
18 April 1990 |
| March 1990 |
|
|
Possession and sale of recently stolen goods justified upholding the appellant’s burglary/theft conviction.
Criminal law – Burglary/theft – Forced entry and theft of goods – Recovery of stolen goods in accused’s possession shortly after theft and admission/sale to a purchaser supports conviction.
|
28 March 1990 |
|
Conviction for employer theft quashed where circumstantial evidence failed to exclude other perpetrators.
Criminal law – Theft – Circumstantial evidence – Absence from duty – Insufficiency of evidence to exclude other perpetrators – Conviction unsafe and quashed.
|
23 March 1990 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove defendants’ negligence in a hired lorry overturning; claim dismissed with costs.
Tort—Negligence—Hirer of vehicle—Liability for accident when hired lorry overturns—Evidence of road conditions, vehicle condition and driver conduct—Burden to prove negligence; failure to do so results in dismissal.
|
15 March 1990 |
| February 1990 |
|
|
Appeal allowed: possession evidence required respondents to open their defence; district court erred in dismissing under section 230.
Criminal law – unlawful possession of government stores – sufficiency of evidence at close of prosecution – section 230 Criminal Procedure – physical condition of seized property immaterial to prima facie case – accused must be called to make defence when possession established.
|
7 February 1990 |
|
Where a charge alleges violence or firearm possession, statutory law mandates refusal of bail and courts must apply that prohibition.
* Criminal procedure — Bail — s.148(5)(e) Criminal Procedure Act (as amended) — Mandatory refusal of bail where acts constituting offence include serious assault causing grievous harm or possession of firearm/explosive.
* Bail hearing — Prosecution not required to prove particulars of violence or firearm possession at bail stage.
* Appellate review — Magistrate erred in granting bail where statutory prohibition applied; remand ordered.
|
2 February 1990 |
| January 1990 |
|
|
Eyewitness and handwriting identification evidence upheld conviction for stealing by a public servant; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – stealing by public servant – sufficiency of evidence; Evidence – eyewitness identification and handwriting evidence – admissibility under s49(1) and proof of signature under s69 Evidence Act; Failure to account for entrusted public property; Sentence – concurrent seven years confirmed.
|
31 January 1990 |
|
First accused’s theft conviction upheld on reliable identification and recent possession; second accused acquitted for lack of proof of knowledge.
* Criminal law – Burglary and theft – Identification evidence – Identification in daylight, opportunity to observe transaction and parade identification – recent possession doctrine. * Criminal law – Receiving stolen property – Mens rea requirement that receiver knew or had reason to believe property was stolen at time of receipt – benefit of doubt where knowledge not established beyond reasonable doubt.
|
31 January 1990 |
|
Conviction based on inadmissible hearsay and an unsigned extrajudicial statement was unsafe and quashed.
Evidence — hearsay and second‑hand testimony — inadmissible written/extrajudicial statements — requirements of section 34(B) Evidence Act — absent witness’s statement not automatically admissible — conviction unsafe where no direct evidence of possession.
|
31 January 1990 |
|
Appeal dismissed: conviction for contempt upheld where appellant disobeyed a lawful court order to refrain from occupying disputed land.
* Criminal law – Contempt of court – Disobedience of a lawful court order – Taking possession of land after being ordered not to occupy it.
* Evidence – Credibility of witnesses – Administrator, village chairman and inspector testimony held sufficient to establish possession.
* Property/Probate – Dispute over estate distribution irrelevant to contempt where the appellant did not appeal prior order.
* Sentence – Six months imprisonment not excessive.
|
31 January 1990 |
|
The applicant successfully challenged bail: s.148(5)(e) bars bail where the charge alleges violence or firearm possession.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Section 148(5)(e) Criminal Procedure Act – mandatory bar to bail where offence involves serious assault, threat of violence or possession of firearm/explosive – sufficiency of charge sheet particulars – prosecution not required to prove violence at bail stage.
|
1 January 1990 |