|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2011 |
|
|
Conflicting duplicate Ward Tribunal judgments vitiated the record, so proceedings were nullified and a retrial ordered.
* Land law – conflicting tribunal records – effect of duplicate and inconsistent Ward Tribunal decisions on subsequent appeals * Civil procedure – nullification of proceedings where lower tribunal issues two different awards on same cause of action * Remedy – setting aside tainted records and ordering retrial before a differently constituted tribunal panel
|
13 December 2011 |
|
Applicant’s review struck out as time-barred for filing 50 days after ruling without evidencing delay.
Civil procedure — Review application — Limitation of actions — Part III, paragraph 3, Schedule to the Law of Limitation Act — requirement to file review within 30 days — absence of evidence of request for copy of ruling — preliminary objection sustained; application struck out with costs.
|
1 December 2011 |
|
The applicant’s review application was struck out as time‑barred; delay explanation unsupported by evidence.
Limitation Act (Part III, para 3) — review application — time bar; delay alleged due to late supply of copy of ruling — lack of evidence; preliminary objection sustained; application struck out with costs; right of appeal.
|
1 December 2011 |
| November 2011 |
|
|
Sale by a non-owner is void ab initio; non-joinder does not defeat a suit under Order I Rule 9 CPC.
Land law – sale by non-owner – transaction void ab initio; Civil Procedure – Order I Rule 9 CPC – misjoinder/non-joinder of parties does not defeat suit; ownership determination on available evidence; appellate review of tribunal findings.
|
22 November 2011 |
|
A Ward Tribunal that sits with fewer than the statutory minimum members is improperly constituted and its decisions must be quashed and retried.
Land law – Ward Tribunal composition – Land Disputes Courts Act (Cap 216) s.11 – minimum membership requirement; Secretary not a member; Incorrect reliance on s.14(1) (mediation) by appellate tribunal; Procedural irregularity vitiates tribunal decision – quash and remit for retrial.
|
1 November 2011 |
| October 2011 |
|
|
High Court granted leave to appeal out of time to resolve conflicting district court revision orders and related procedural issues.
Application for leave to appeal out of time; revisionary proceedings under section 22(3) Magistrates' Courts Act; conflicting District Court revision orders; supervisory clarification by High Court.
|
25 October 2011 |
|
Appeal dismissed: visual identification reliable; late alibi and misquoted charge were curable and did not vitiate conviction.
* Criminal law – Visual identification – Early naming at scene and adequate lighting support reliable identification.
* Criminal procedure – Defence of alibi – requirement to notify prosecution (s.194(6) CPA) and court’s discretion to consider late alibi.
* Evidence – No fixed number of witnesses required (s.143 Evidence Act); single credible witness may suffice.
* Pleadings – Misquotation of charging section curable where particulars clear and no prejudice to accused.
|
24 October 2011 |
|
A missing date/place in a plaint’s verification is amendable; extension to appeal a retrial order is misconceived and abusive.
Civil procedure – verification of pleadings – Order VI r.15(3) CPC – omission of date/place in verification is procedural and amendable; Land law – appeals – order for retrial is not appealable – extension of time to appeal such order is abuse of process; doctrine of amendability of pleadings; applicability of precedent on verification defects.
|
20 October 2011 |
|
Stay of eviction granted; repair and toilet claims premature pending determination of right to occupy and time‑barred appeal issues.
Land — Remedies conditional on right to occupy — Re‑roofing and toilet reconstruction premature pending determination of right to occupy; Stay of execution of DLHT judgment (eviction) granted; Appeal found out of time — leave to appeal to be determined in related application.
|
18 October 2011 |
| September 2011 |
|
|
Extension of time granted where missing drawn order made appeal incompetent and respondents showed no prejudice.
Extension of time – Limitation Act s.14(1) – failure to attach copy of drawn order – incompetence of appeal – non-supply of court documents – sufficient cause – prejudice to respondent – discretion to grant extension.
|
13 September 2011 |
|
Conviction based on suspicion, disappearance or mere presence without cogent evidence is unsafe.
Criminal law – Sufficiency of evidence – Conviction cannot be based on suspicion, disappearance or mere presence; need for cogent direct or admissible circumstantial evidence; absence of exhibits and eyewitnesses defeats prosecution case; employment as a watchman does not by itself establish guilt.
|
12 September 2011 |
| August 2011 |
|
|
Conviction quashed where identification was unreliable and prosecution failed to prove armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Armed robbery – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Identification of a stranger at the scene – Visual identification must be clear and detailed.
* Evidence – Failure to tender alleged exhibits and lack of proof of injury weaken the prosecution case.
* Appellate review – Reassessment of witness credibility permissible where record circumstances warrant.
|
24 August 2011 |
|
Acquittal alone does not prove malicious prosecution; plaintiff must prove lack of reasonable/probable cause and malice.
Malicious prosecution — elements required: prosecution by defendant, favourable termination, absence of reasonable and probable cause, malice; acquittal not conclusive; burden on plaintiff to prove lack of reasonable cause and malice; police acting on third-party information can establish reasonable and probable cause.
|
11 August 2011 |
|
Convictions quashed because visual identification was unsafe due to darkness, strangers, and lack of detailed description.
* Criminal law - Visual identification - Reliability of identification at night by witnesses who were strangers to accused.
* Identification evidence - Factors to consider: duration of observation, distance, light and description of suspect.
* Identification parade - Absence may render identification unsafe where in-court identification is uncorroborated.
* Conviction unsafe - Quashing where identification conditions not satisfied.
|
10 August 2011 |
| July 2011 |
|
|
The accused acquitted because prosecution failed to prove causation and murderous intent beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – murder – elements of murder (actus reus and mens rea) – necessity to prove intent and causation beyond reasonable doubt. * Evidence – alibi and assessment of credibility of witnesses; single reliable witness rule. * Forensic evidence – post‑mortem compliance with Inquests Act and probative value where recency of injuries is undetermined. * Causation – death amidst pre‑existing illness: prosecution must isolate immediate cause.
|
1 July 2011 |
|
Acquittal where assault proved but intent and causation for murder not established and medical evidence was deficient.
* Criminal law – Murder – Elements: actus reus, mens rea and causation – Whether assault caused death – Medical evidence and post‑mortem procedural compliance – Defence of alibi – Role of assessors (advisory).
|
1 July 2011 |
| June 2011 |
|
|
Convictions quashed where prosecution failed to prove reliable visual identification and identification parade was inadequate.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – Visual identification reliability – Court to scrutinize factors (duration, distance, light, prior acquaintance).
* Criminal procedure – Identification parade – collateral value only; improperly conducted parade cannot cure unsafe identification.
* Appeal – Conviction quashed where identification evidence is unreliable and raises reasonable doubt.
|
27 June 2011 |
|
Wrong statutory citation in application for extension of time renders the application incompetent and it was struck out.
Criminal procedure — extension of time to file notice of intention to appeal — correct provision s.361(2) vs incorrect citation of s.361(1)(a); procedural competence — wrong statutory citation renders application incompetent; affidavits — jurat requirement satisfied; prison transfer allegations require evidential proof.
|
27 June 2011 |
|
Convictions quashed where evidence showed burglary, recent‑possession was misapplied and prosecution failed to link the appellant to the theft.
Criminal law — variance between charge and evidence — housebreaking versus burglary; Doctrine of recent possession — requirements of identification by special marks; Burden of proof — recovery of stolen property does not shift burden; Prosecution duty — need to investigate and link accused (alternative suspects); Disposal of exhibits — found property under s351(2) Criminal Procedure Act.
|
22 June 2011 |
|
Whether res judicata bars a non‑party holding an estate by love and affection and identity of the disputed land.
* Land law – identity of subject-matter – necessity for appellate court to verify that the land in the earlier proceeding is identical to the land in the later dispute.
* Res judicata – whether doctrine binds a non-party who holds an estate by love and affection that constitutes the subject matter of suit.
* Procedural – certification of point of law and grant of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
|
16 June 2011 |
|
Appeal held timely under 90‑day limitation but struck out for failure to attach the judgment and decree to the memorandum.
Land law – Appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal – Limitation period governed by Law of Limitation Act via s.52(2) Land Disputes Courts Act (90 days) – time to obtain judgment excluded from limitation – procedural requirement under Order XXXIX r.1(1) CPC to attach judgment and decree – failure to attach renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out.
|
3 June 2011 |
|
An appeal filed four days late and before a tribunal lacking territorial jurisdiction is incompetent and struck out.
Land law – Appeals – Limitation period for appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal under section 38 – territorial jurisdiction of District Land and Housing Tribunal – incompetence of appeals filed out of time and before a tribunal lacking territorial jurisdiction – nullification of proceedings.
|
2 June 2011 |
| May 2011 |
|
|
Appellate court restored trial finding that the disputed tree stood in the respondent’s plot and ordered its removal by the respondent.
* Civil procedure – representation by power of attorney – agent/advocate cannot concurrently give witness evidence. * Land law – determination of ownership of a tree by reference to locus in quo and boundaries marked by tribunal visit. * Appellate review – appellate tribunal may not substitute factual findings of trial tribunal without basis; 'no man’s land' cannot be declared in an unsurveyed area absent parties’ consent.
|
31 May 2011 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification was unreliable due to unexplained delay and investigative gaps.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification evidence – unexplained delay between incident and identification – police/investigative evidence required to explain arrest – burden of proof – watertight evidence required in serious offences – accused’s closure of defence precludes complaint about calling witnesses.
|
25 May 2011 |
|
Appellant lacked court-appointed authority to administer the estate; clan minutes insufficient, appeal struck out and proceedings nullified.
* Locus standi – capacity to sue – clan nominee – requirement for court appointment under Probate and Administration of Estates Act (Cap. 352) – clan minutes insufficient. * Civil procedure – incompetence of proceedings where plaintiff lacks legal authority – nullity of lower tribunal proceedings. * Evidence – party’s shifting claim of ownership versus representative capacity affects standing.
|
24 May 2011 |
|
PF3 irregularity and credibility led court to find appellant acted in lawful self‑defence and quash the conviction.
Criminal procedure – PF3 admissibility – production by non‑maker and duty to call maker (s240 CPA); Evidence – sufficiency of single witness and credibility (s127 Evidence Act); Self‑defence – assessment of provocation, proportionate force and appellate re‑evaluation where trial court omitted findings.
|
20 May 2011 |
|
Application to revoke letters of administration struck out for wrong forum and defective affidavit by a non‑party applicant.
* Probate and Administration – Revocation of letters of administration – Proper forum to apply for revocation (court which granted letters v. appellate court).
* Locus standi – Applicant not party to original probate proceedings – stranger to the cause.
* Civil procedure – Affidavit verification – Where affidavit is on information, sources must be specified (Salima Vuai Foum v Registrar of Cooperative Societies [1995] TLR 75).
|
17 May 2011 |
|
The applicant's application for leave to appeal was struck out as time‑barred for failure to comply with the seven‑day filing requirement.
Civil procedure — leave to appeal — time limit for filing application for leave to appeal to Court of Appeal — failure to comply with seven‑day limit — application incompetent and struck out; preliminary objection sustained.
|
17 May 2011 |
|
Trial court erred by basing judgment on pleadings; pleadings are not evidence and a retrial is ordered.
Civil procedure — Judgment must follow a hearing — Section 28 Civil Procedure Code — Pleadings are not evidence (Order VI R.3) — Judgment based on pleadings where parties are at issue is erroneous — Order XX R.4 requirements — Retrial ordered.
|
12 May 2011 |
|
Conviction for assault quashed due to inadequate exploration and corroboration of essential facts despite daylight identification potential.
Criminal law – assault – adequacy of identification evidence – related witnesses and need for corroboration – Evidence Act ss.143,127 – necessity to elicit material particulars of the offence for safe conviction.
|
11 May 2011 |
|
Dangerous-driving conviction quashed for insufficient corroboration; licence conviction upheld but sentence substituted with a fine.
Criminal law — Dangerous driving (s.40 Road Traffic Act) — Lay witness evidence may suffice but requires corroboration; sketch plan provenance critical; conviction quashed for lack of corroboration. Criminal procedure — Accused's opportunity to produce defence evidence — delay attributable to accused; conviction for driving without licence upheld but sentence substituted with fine.
|
6 May 2011 |
| March 2011 |
|
|
A timely-filed appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to attach the required decree to the memorandum of appeal.
Land appeal — Time limitation — computation runs from date copy of judgment supplied (Limitation Act s.19) — Appeals to High Court from District Tribunal require filing within 60 days (Land Disputes Courts Act s.38) — Civil Procedure Code O.XXXIX r.1(1) mandatory requirement to attach decree to memorandum of appeal — failure to attach decree renders appeal incompetent and liable to be dismissed with costs.
|
18 March 2011 |
|
Evidence of deceptive collection and forged/irregular receipts supported criminal conviction and alternative verdict substitution.
Criminal law – theft versus obtaining by false pretence – admissibility and weight of receipts and witness testimony; alternative verdicts on appeal; burden of proof and reasonable doubt.
|
18 March 2011 |
|
Leave granted where arguable legal questions arise about admitting written documents to clarify oral agreements.
Appellate procedure – leave to appeal – prima facie arguable appeal; Evidence – oral agreements v documentary evidence; whether a written business worksheet can make an uncertain oral agreement certain; leave granted where questions of law require Court of Appeal guidance.
|
10 March 2011 |
| February 2011 |
|
|
Claim for unpaid coffee deliveries dismissed because duplicate receipts were not proved under Section 67 Evidence Act.
Evidence — Documentary evidence — Copies/duplicates — Admission of secondary evidence — requirement to comply with Section 67(1) of the Evidence Act; Civil burden of proof — claimant must prove case on balance of probabilities; Contract/Agency — disputed deductions alleged to relate to agent’s losses; Vicarious liability — contested but not upheld on defective documentary proof.
|
8 February 2011 |
|
Failure to justify secondary documentary evidence under Section 67 Evidence Act led to dismissal for lack of proof.
Evidence — Documentary evidence — Secondary/duplicate documents — Requirements of Section 67(1) Evidence Act — Failure to explain non‑availability of originals renders duplicates inadmissible; civil burden of proof — balance of probabilities; contract/consent — alleged agreement to compensate for agent’s loss; vicarious liability — pleaded but not determinative where primary evidence lacking.
|
8 February 2011 |
|
Convictions quashed due to unreliable identification, improper PF.3 production, and sentencing irregularities.
Sexual offences — identification and credibility of complainant; PF.3 (medical report) — improper production — duty to call maker — PF.3 expunged; Witness inconsistencies and corroboration; Subordinate court sentencing limits — requirement of High Court confirmation for excessive sentences.
|
7 February 2011 |
|
Convictions quashed where victim’s identification was unreliable and a PF.3 medical report was improperly produced.
* Evidence — Sexual offences — Reliance on single victim's testimony under SOSPA — credibility and need for reliability; * Evidence — PF.3 medical report — maker should be called; improper production may lead to expungement; * Criminal procedure — Variance in time between charge and evidence immaterial under s.234(3) CPC; * Criminal law — Charges must cite correct statute (Penal Code as amended by SOSPA); * Sentencing — subordinate courts limited by Minimum Sentence provisions; certain sentences require High Court confirmation.
|
7 February 2011 |
| January 2011 |
|
|
Ward Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over the land dispute (value Shs.928,000); District Tribunal’s judgment set aside.
* Land law – jurisdiction of land courts – pecuniary jurisdiction of District Land and Housing Tribunal versus Ward Tribunal; valuation threshold Shs. 3,000,000 under Land Disputes Courts Act s.15. * Procedural law – proceedings and judgment declared null and void for want of jurisdiction. * Remedy – setting aside of trial tribunal’s judgment; liberty to refile subject to limitation.
|
27 January 2011 |