|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2006 |
|
|
High Court granted extension and found District Court erred by consolidating separate Primary Court appeals; appeals must be filed and heard separately.
* Criminal procedure – improper consolidation of separate Primary Court appeals – appeals from distinct files should be heard separately.
* Magistrates Courts Act (1984) – s.20(2) (limits on appeals from guilty pleas) and s.25 (High Court revisional and extension powers).
* Jurisdiction – Primary Court sentencing limits (six months; up to twelve months on confirmation) and necessity to examine sentence legality.
* Extension of time – High Court may extend time to file appeals where error causes injustice.
|
11 September 2006 |
|
The High Court allowed the applicant to file separate appeals after the District Court wrongly consolidated four distinct, time-barred appeals.
Magistrates' Courts Act — consolidation of appeals — improper joinder of separate Primary Court files; appeals after guilty plea (s.20(2)); High Court revisional and extension powers (s.25); Primary Court sentencing jurisdiction limits.
|
11 September 2006 |
|
|
6 September 2006 |
| August 2006 |
|
|
Rape conviction unsafe due to unreliable night identification, missing voir dire and inadequate medical evidence.
Criminal law – visual identification at night – reliability; Failure to conduct voir dire (s.127(2) Law of Evidence) – material irregularity; Medical evidence insufficient to prove intercourse or link accused; Alibi notice (s.194(4) Criminal Procedure Act) – consequences of non-compliance; Conviction unsafe, appeal allowed.
|
28 August 2006 |
|
|
18 August 2006 |
| May 2006 |
|
|
Village reallocation of land in another's possession is illegal; respondent's prior title and Forest Department letter upheld.
Land law – ownership dispute – effect of administrative (Forest Department) intervention and survey – illegality of village authority reallocating land in possession of another – limitation and timeliness of claim.
|
30 May 2006 |
|
|
24 May 2006 |
|
Wife entitled to equal accommodation and maintenance in polygynous marriage under the Law of Marriage Act; appeal dismissed.
Family law – Polygynous marriage – Application of Law of Marriage Act ss.57 & 63(a) – Duty of husband to provide equal maintenance and accommodation – Jurisdiction of Baraza la Kata/Primary Court in matrimonial disputes.
|
18 May 2006 |
|
Appeal allowed: land title wrongly issued to an unregistered mosque; title declared in favour of the appellant Muslim council.
Civil procedure — ambiguous judgment — compliance with Order XX Rule 4 — memorandum of appeal defects — Order XXXIX Rule 3(1) — legal personality of religious bodies — land title mistakenly issued to unregistered mosque — rectification in favour of registered Muslim council.
|
9 May 2006 |
|
Whether land title issued in the name of an unregistered mosque should be declared in favour of the registered religious body.
Civil procedure – ambiguous judgment and required contents under Order XX Rule 4; appeals – sufficiency and amendability of memorandum of appeal under Order XXXIX; property – capacity to hold title: unregistered mosque vs registered religious body; rectification of land title issued in error.
|
9 May 2006 |
|
|
9 May 2006 |
|
|
4 May 2006 |
| April 2006 |
|
|
Suit over inherited land dismissed for failure to prove devolution and for not joining all persons with common interest.
* Land law – title by inheritance – proof of devolution required; absence of will or clan decision defeats individual locus standi.
* Civil procedure – joinder of parties – Order 1 Rules 1 and 3; where numerous persons share an interest, Order 1 Rule 8 permits suit by representative with court permission and notice.
* Procedural irregularity – failure to join all interested persons renders proceedings a nullity.
|
25 April 2006 |
| March 2006 |
|
|
|
13 March 2006 |
|
Appeal dismissed: convictions for mere cultivation upheld; expert ID unnecessary and cautioned statement admissible without trial-within-trial.
* Criminal law – Narcotic drugs – Cultivation of cannabis – Offence created by mere cultivation under statute; identification may be proved by admission. * Evidence – Admitted facts at preliminary hearing deemed proved (Criminal Procedure Act s192(4)). * Evidence – No prescribed number of witnesses required to prove a fact (Evidence Act s143). * Procedure – Admissibility of cautioned statements; trial-within-trial only if accused objects to tendering the statement.
|
13 March 2006 |
|
The appellant's appeal was dismissed: admissions and undisputed preliminary-hearing evidence sufficed to prove cannabis cultivation.
* Criminal law – Narcotics – Cultivation of cannabis – Mere cultivation constitutes an offence under the statutory regime.
* Evidence – Preliminary hearing admissions – Facts admitted at preliminary hearing deemed proved (s192(4) Criminal Procedure Act).
* Evidence – Admissibility of cautioned statements – Trial-within-trial only required if accused objects to tendering of statement; failure to object bars challenge.
* Evidence – Number of witnesses – No prescribed number of witnesses required to prove a fact (s143 Evidence Act).
|
13 March 2006 |
|
Prosecution failed to prove malice aforethought; accused convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
Criminal law – Murder v. manslaughter – requirement to prove malice aforethought beyond reasonable doubt; Defence of provocation – when words constitute provocation; Evidence – eyewitness account, post-mortem findings, failure to produce weapon, visibility at night affecting proof of intent.
|
6 March 2006 |
| February 2006 |
|
|
Court allowed the applicant's appeal and remitted the employment claim for trial despite a seven‑day filing delay.
Limitation of actions – Ministerial extension under s.44 Limitation Act 1971; preliminary objection – dismissal without hearing merits; right to fair trial – protection of lay litigants; exercise of s.95 Civil Procedure Act to remedy injustice and remit for trial.
|
28 February 2006 |
|
Respondent failed to prove customary marriage or produce a valid will; appellate award overturned and trial judgment restored.
* Inheritance law – proof of customary marriage – requirement to adduce cogent evidence of customary rites. * Succession – validity of testamentary documents – requirements under Rules of the Customary Law (Declaration) Order G.N. 436 of 1963. * Appellate review – error where courts treat informal documents as wills and base entitlement on insufficient evidence.
|
26 February 2006 |
|
Appellants' church pronouncements imputing criminality were defamatory and not protected by qualified privilege; interest reduced to statutory 7%.
Defamation — alleged imputations of theft and corruption communicated at a Mass — actionable per se; qualified privilege — inapplicable where statements made at religious service outside proper forum for disciplinary communications; damages — general damages for imputations of criminal conduct; interest — statutory 7% rate applies absent written agreement.
|
9 February 2006 |
|
Suspicion and presence near an injured victim do not constitute a prima facie murder case; accused acquitted.
* Criminal law – Murder – Prima facie case – sufficiency of evidence to put accused to answer.
* Criminal law – Necessity of proof beyond reasonable doubt – suspicion and presence near victim insufficient.
* Evidence – Dying declaration – weight and admissibility.
* Criminal procedure – Discharge under Sections 293 and 294 Criminal Procedure Act (no case to answer).
|
3 February 2006 |
| January 2006 |
|
|
Failure to plead required terms and specify relief renders an employment claim defective and the appeal dismissed.
Employment law – contract of employment need not be written but must disclose terms (specified wage); Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 7 – plaint must state specific relief; failure to amend defective plaint before conclusion bars claim; defective pleadings justify dismissal.
|
30 January 2006 |