|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2006 |
|
|
Conviction for possession of narcotics quashed where lone police testimony lacked scientific identification and corroboration.
Criminal law – narcotic drugs – possession – admissibility and sufficiency of identification evidence – requirement for cogent/professional proof and calling of available witnesses; unsafe conviction quashed.
|
14 December 2006 |
|
Conviction for possession of narcotics quashed where prosecution failed to prove substance identity or call corroborative witnesses.
Narcotic drugs – proof of identity of seized substance – necessity of scientific or expert evidence where identification by single police witness is unsubstantiated; failure to call expected witnesses undermines prosecution case; convictions for serious drug offences require cogent evidence.
|
14 December 2006 |
|
The appellant's possession conviction upheld but theft conviction quashed as duplicative.
Criminal law – Possession of stolen property – identification of exhibits (bicycle frame number; pump serial number) – eyewitness identification and flight; Criminal law – Theft – insufficiency of evidence where there is no proof of breaking or actual theft; Conviction duplicity – conviction for possession cannot support a separate stealing conviction on same facts.
|
14 December 2006 |
|
A possession conviction was upheld, but a concurrent stealing conviction based on the same facts was quashed for impermissible duplication.
* Criminal law – Possession of stolen property – identification by owner (frame/serial numbers and receipts) – sufficiency of evidence to convict. * Criminal procedure – Duplicity of convictions – impermissibility of convicting for stealing and for possession of the same stolen items on the same facts.
|
14 December 2006 |
|
Open-door entry cannot sustain housebreaking; the act was attempted theft and malicious damage conviction upheld.
* Criminal law – housebreaking – entry through an open door does not constitute "breaking" for housebreaking offences. * Criminal law – theft v. attempted theft – arrest before removal of property amounts to attempted theft. * Sentencing – Minimum Sentence Act – offences removed from the Act by 2002 amendment cannot be sentenced under section 5. * Malicious damage – conviction supported where accused deliberately damaged complainant’s property.
|
8 December 2006 |
| November 2006 |
|
|
Insufficient and uncorroborated evidence, including a post-incident payment, cannot sustain an adultery finding or damages award.
Civil procedure — second appeal limited to points of law or obvious misdirection; Evidence — adultery claims require credible direct or corroborated circumstantial evidence; Interested witness — testimony requires corroboration; Payment/settlement — compensation paid does not conclusively prove adultery; Damages — award for adultery must be justified and consider customary factors (Law of Marriage Act s.74(2)).
|
24 November 2006 |
|
Leave to appeal refused where dispute involved factual findings on defamation and qualified privilege, not a point of law.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal – application under wrong statutory provision – merits involve factual determination on defamation and qualified privilege; test for defamation is objective (third‑party perception).
|
23 November 2006 |
|
Unreliable identification and absence of an admissible cautioned statement rendered the prosecution case insufficient; accused acquitted.
Criminal law – sufficiency of prosecution evidence under section 293 – visual identification – reliability and conditions for identification (Waziki Amani guidelines) – inadmissibility/value of uncproduced cautioned statement.
|
20 November 2006 |
|
Conviction for rape overturned due to partisan family evidence, lack of voir dire, inadequate PF3 and insufficient proof.
Criminal law – Rape – reliance on testimony of close relatives; Evidence Act s.127(2) – voir dire for child witnesses; PF3 medical report – sufficiency; conviction beyond reasonable doubt; ambiguous sentencing order; retrial discretionary and not ordered where prosecution evidence is insufficient.
|
17 November 2006 |
| October 2006 |
|
|
Court acquitted accused of murder for insufficient prosecution evidence, citing careless investigation and inadmissible/delayed witness statements.
Criminal law – murder – sufficiency of evidence; no case to answer where prosecution evidence fails to connect accused; suspicion insufficient for conviction; delayed and irregularly recorded witness statements; inadmissibility of improperly recorded statements; negligent investigation and court's admonition to police and prosecutors.
|
9 October 2006 |
| September 2006 |
|
|
Conviction quashed where trial court failed to evaluate defence and no forensic link tied the appellant to the semen.
* Criminal law – Rape – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Distinction between proof of sexual intercourse and proof of identity of perpetrator. * Criminal procedure – Evaluation of evidence – Trial court must assess defence evidence together with prosecution case. * Forensic evidence – Presence of spermatozoa without DNA linkage insufficient to identify accused. * Appeal – Conviction quashed where reasonable doubt as to who committed the offence.
|
29 September 2006 |
|
An extension of time to appeal requires good reasons and prospects of success; procedural defects and unproven claims justify dismissal.
* Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – applicant must show sufficient and good reasons for delay and prospects of success.
* Appeal procedure – appeals must be properly framed to challenge the decision under attack; defective memorandum may dispose of appeal.
* Evidence – allegations of procedural assistance must be raised and supported by evidence to justify delay.
|
8 September 2006 |
|
Appeal allowed: rape conviction quashed due to witness contradictions, inadequate identification and insufficient medical evidence.
Criminal law — Rape — Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt; Identification — visual ID at dusk and insufficient lighting; Credibility — contradictions between prosecution witnesses; Medical evidence — PF.3 findings unsupported by scientific basis; Victim testimony — refusal to testify and absence of medical proof of epilepsy; Conviction quashed for insufficient evidence.
|
1 September 2006 |
| August 2006 |
|
|
Mandatory Economic Crimes Act bail conditions apply; trial magistrate erred by varying them and pre-judging evidence.
* Criminal procedure – Bail – Review and variation of bail conditions during proceedings – power to review without formal written application; limitations where law prescribes mandatory conditions.
* Economic and Organized Crime Control Act – Section 36(4)(e) and (5) – mandatory bail conditions (cash deposit equal to half value of property and bond) applicable where offences carry stricter conditions than Criminal Procedure Act.
* Conflict of laws – where multiple statutes apply, the court must impose the most stringent bail conditions.
* Improper considerations – reliance on partly recorded evidence and remarks suggesting probable guilt amount to extraneous considerations and pre-judgment.
|
21 August 2006 |
|
Conviction quashed where prosecution failed to identify stolen property and recent-possession doctrine was misapplied.
Criminal law – Burglary and theft – Identification of stolen property – Complainant must describe distinguishing features; Criminal law – Doctrine of recent possession – Applicable only if recovered items are proven to be the very items stolen; Evidence – Burden on prosecution to prove ownership and recent theft beyond reasonable doubt; Sentencing – Minimum Sentence Act First Schedule amendments (Written Laws (Misc. Amendments) Act No.9/2002) removed earlier mandatory minima.
|
18 August 2006 |
| July 2006 |
|
|
A petitioner must first seek determination of security under s111(3) before applying for exemption under s111(5).
Elections Act — security for costs — s111(3) mandatory 14‑day application for determination of amount; s111(5) exemption conditional on hardship and subsequent to s111(3); premature exemption applications struck out; inherent powers cannot cure statutory non‑compliance.
|
24 July 2006 |
|
Claimant lacked locus standi; disputed cooperative property belongs to successor cooperative, appeal allowed.
Cooperative law – disposition of defunct cooperative union property – Registrar/district directives – locus standi to claim cooperative property – proof of ownership and valuation.
|
21 July 2006 |
|
Appeal allowed: respondent was an employee, not a partner; trial award based on unreliable evidence and biased judgment set aside.
* Partnership law – express or implied partnership; requirement of clear intention and agreement; ownership shown by registration and conduct. * Evidence – reliability of handwritten/photocopied documents and calculations by unqualified/interested witnesses. * Employment law – indicators of employment (salary slips, NPF/NSSF, oral contract of service). * Appellate review – intervention warranted where findings of fact unsupported by evidence or inferences plainly wrong. * Judicial conduct – improper, prejudicial language may give rise to apparent bias.
|
18 July 2006 |
| June 2006 |
|
|
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused attempted to murder his grandmother by administering poison.
Criminal law – Attempted murder – Elements of attempt: intention and overt acts manifesting intent; eyewitness evidence and credibility; circumstantial evidence (possession of packets); weight of chemist report confirming poisonous substance; sufficiency of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
2 June 2006 |
| February 2006 |
|
|
Bail pending trial for attempted murder granted with conditions including bail amount, sureties, passport surrender, and attendance.
Criminal law – Bail pending trial – Attempted murder (s.211 Penal Code) – Bailable offence; Conditions of bail under s.148 Criminal Procedure Act; Consideration of accused’s personal circumstances (care of young child); Sureties approval by District Registrar; Surrender of travel documents; Restriction on leaving jurisdiction.
|
14 February 2006 |
|
Applicant acquitted of manslaughter due to unreliable sole eyewitness evidence and lack of corroboration.
Criminal law – Manslaughter – Visual identification and credibility of sole eyewitness; delay in reporting and reliability of identification; requirement that prosecution prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt where case rests on single witness; corroboration cannot validate inherently unreliable testimony.
|
9 February 2006 |
|
Whether diagnosed temporal lobe epilepsy rendered the accused legally insane and not criminally responsible for murder.
Criminal law – Insanity/mental disorder (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) – section 220(1) psychiatric examination – special verdict: committed the act but not criminally responsible – disposal by detention in mental hospital.
|
3 February 2006 |