|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2013 |
|
|
Applicant lacked locus standi to sue administratrix and produced no authority to litigate for an adult beneficiary; application dismissed.
Probate and administration – locus standi to sue an administratrix – applicant not a beneficiary or creditor – third party suing for an adult beneficiary must show authority (e.g., power of attorney) – adult beneficiary’s capacity to sue.
|
13 December 2013 |
|
Criminal charges for damage to crops founded on disputed land ownership must await civil determination of title.
* Criminal law – malicious damage to property – where subject land ownership is disputed the criminal charge should be stayed pending civil determination. * Ward Tribunals – jurisdiction under s.9 – possess criminal jurisdiction but must not resolve matters dependent on undetermined land ownership. * Civil v. criminal procedure – criminal proceedings predicated on disputed proprietary rights are irregular and void if ownership not finally determined.
|
10 December 2013 |
|
The applicant lacked locus standi to sue over family/deceased's land; proceedings were null and appeal dismissed.
Locus standi – capacity to sue over family or deceased’s estate land – necessity of permission under s.18(2) Land Disputes Courts Act or proof of estate administration; nullity ab initio of proceedings brought without locus standi; effect on subsequent appeals; court may consider locus standi at any stage.
|
3 December 2013 |
| November 2013 |
|
|
Appeal dismissed: prosecution failed to prove trespass or ownership; ownership disputes must be resolved civilly.
* Criminal law – burden of proof – prosecution must prove trespass beyond reasonable doubt; any doubt benefits the accused.
* Trespass – conviction requires proof of claimant’s lawful ownership of the land allegedly trespassed upon.
* Civil vs criminal jurisdiction – ownership disputes should be determined in civil proceedings; prior civil judgments bind only if they relate to the same land.
* Evidence – failure to call corroborative witnesses and continuous nature of alleged acts can weaken trespass allegations.
|
21 November 2013 |
|
Application for bail struck out due to incorrect statutory citation and affidavit containing legal material.
Criminal procedure — bail pending hearing — importance of properly moving the court by correct statutory citation; affidavits must contain facts only (Order XIX r.3(1)); defective affidavits may be cured by striking offending paragraphs, but jurisdictional defects warrant striking out; practice of counter-affidavits and preliminary points of objection.
|
20 November 2013 |
|
Affidavit containing legal argument and conclusions breached CPC, rendering the bail application incompetent and struck out.
Affidavit requirements under Order XIX r.3(1) CPC; affidavits must contain only facts; impermissibility of legal argument, statutory citation and conclusions; curability of affidavit defects; remedy — strike out or expunge; bail chamber application competence.
|
20 November 2013 |
| October 2013 |
|
|
Court dismissed land appeal after finding the appellant lacked locus standi and originating proceedings were void.
* Land law – locus standi – capacity to sue – plaintiff must prove title or authority (e.g., ownership, administration of estate, family representative). * Civil procedure – nullity – proceedings are void ab initio where claimant lacks locus standi; subsequent appeals founded on void proceedings fall. * Evidence – conflict of witness accounts undermining proof of ownership.
|
31 October 2013 |
|
An arbitration clause requires disputes on termination and payment to be referred to arbitration; court stayed the suit.
Arbitration clause – scope and enforcement – disputes over contractual termination and non-payment fall within arbitration clause; stay of court proceedings under s.6 Arbitration Act enforced; parties’ readiness to arbitrate relevant.
|
29 October 2013 |
|
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed because prosecution failed to prove theft beyond reasonable doubt with non‑watertight evidence.
* Criminal law – Theft – Evidence; * Requirement that guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt; * Circumstantial and single-witness evidence must be watertight and lead irresistibly to guilt; * Appellate review in second appeal where lower courts' findings are unsafe.
|
28 October 2013 |
|
Conviction for stealing by agent quashed for failure to prove essential elements and inadequately reasoned trial judgment.
Criminal law – stealing by agent – proof of actus reus and mens rea; Criminal procedure – judgment requirements under s.312(1) – points for determination and objective evaluation; Evidentiary weight of complainant's post-event payments and lack of verification.
|
23 October 2013 |
|
Illness after the ten-day deadline did not excuse failure to give mandatory notice of intention to appeal, so extension was refused.
Criminal procedure – extension of time to appeal – requirement to give notice of intention to appeal within ten days (s.361(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Act) – request for copy of judgment does not substitute for notice – illness occurring after statutory period cannot excuse failure to give mandatory notice.
|
11 October 2013 |
|
Respondent's land claim was time-barred; appellant had acquired title by adverse possession.
* Limitation (Law of Limitation Act, Part I item 22) – 12-year period for land claims; time-bar and prescription.
* Adverse possession – exclusive, uninterrupted possession for 12 years without fraud establishes title.
* Evidence and credibility – informal/vague complaints do not interrupt limitation; formal complaint timing is critical.
* Procedural error – appellate interference justified where lower tribunals omitted to consider a decisive legal issue.
|
8 October 2013 |
| September 2013 |
|
|
Appellant’s convictions quashed where prosecution failed to identify stolen property and recent-possession was misapplied.
Criminal law – proof beyond reasonable doubt; Identification of stolen property – need for specific description and verification; Doctrine of recent possession – limits where accused gives reasonable explanation; Admissibility of exhibits – court must rule on objections; Judicial intervention – court calling witnesses may not shift prosecution's burden.
|
11 September 2013 |
|
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence quashed where alternative explanations and procedural shortcomings raised reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – Conviction on suspicion – Requirement to exclude co-existing circumstances – Custody of keys and exclusive control – Uncertainty of date of offence – Procedural compliance with section 192(3) CPA and Accelerated Trials Rules.
|
11 September 2013 |
| July 2013 |
|
|
Appellant's conviction quashed for unsafe night identification and improperly admitted PF3; appeal allowed and sentence set aside.
* Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Reliance on visual identification at night – Waziri Amani factors (time, distance, lighting, prior knowledge) – identification evidence must be 'water tight'.
* Evidence – Possession of stolen property – absence of evidence of possession is significant.
* Criminal procedure – Alibi must be formally raised in trial (s.194(4) CPA) or cannot be relied on ground of appeal.
* Evidence – Medical report (PF3) admissibility – must be tendered by its author and accused informed under s.240(3) CPA; otherwise expunged.
* Appellate procedure – Appeal against a non-party improper; failure to hear parties may be cured under s.37(2) Magistrates' Courts Act if no miscarriage of justice.
|
29 July 2013 |
|
Conviction based on unreliable night identification and improperly tendered medical report was quashed; sentence set aside.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence at night – Requirements for reliable visual identification (Waziri Amani criteria). * Evidence – Admissibility of PF3/medical report – compliance with section 240(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act and tendering by author. * Criminal procedure – Appellate irregularities (appeal against non‑party; judging without hearing) and cure under section 37(2) Magistrates' Courts Act. * Criminal procedure – Alibi must be raised in accordance with section 194(4) CPA.
|
29 July 2013 |
|
Conviction for cutting trees upheld; two‑year sentence illegal and reduced to twelve months under s.170 CPA.
* Criminal law – Malicious damage to property – Identification and direct evidence – Eye-witnesses who personally saw accused commit the act constitute admissible direct evidence (s.62(1)(a) Evidence Act).
* Criminal procedure – Appeal – New grounds of ownership raised at appeal are inadmissible if not pleaded at trial.
* Sentencing – Limits of subordinate courts under s.170 Criminal Procedure Act – imprisonment exceeding 12 months requires transmission and confirmation by High Court; illegal sentence to be quashed and substituted.
|
15 July 2013 |
|
Court quashed conviction and ordered release where trial record was lost and a retrial would cause injustice.
Criminal procedure – lost trial record – remedy where original record lost – discretion to order retrial only where interests of justice require and retrial would not cause injustice – quashing conviction and ordering release where retrial would be prejudicial.
|
12 July 2013 |
| June 2013 |
|
|
Prosecution failed to prove grievous harm beyond reasonable doubt due to improperly admitted PF3 and uncorroborated, irregular witness evidence.
Criminal law – Grievous harm – admissibility of PF3 – section 240(3) CPA – requirement to make medical officer available – expunging improperly admitted medical report; Evidence – unscheduled/unserved witness testimony inadmissible; Corroboration – need for independent witnesses; Failure to call listed prosecution witnesses – adverse inference; Standard of proof – beyond reasonable doubt.
|
13 June 2013 |
| May 2013 |
|
|
Conviction quashed where identity of accused and stolen property were inadequately proved; sentence set aside.
Criminal law – identification of accused at night – need for explanation of conditions for reliable identification; Stolen property – requirement of specific identification by owner; Non-appearance of complainant – adverse inference against prosecution; Recent possession – cannot substitute for specific identification; Sentencing – magistrate’s powers under s.170 Criminal Procedure Act.
|
24 May 2013 |
|
High Court exercised inherent jurisdiction to correct bail arithmetic and ordered Shs.40,000,000 shared equally among five applicants.
Criminal procedure – Bail – Orders under sections 148–160 – High Court review and inherent jurisdiction – functus officio – Sharing principle for joint bail/security – Wrong citation of statute ordinarily fatal but court may correct manifest errors.
|
13 May 2013 |