|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1992 |
|
|
The appellant failed to prove adultery; appeal dismissed for insufficient and unsupported evidence.
* Family law – adultery – burden of proof – requirement to prove adultery on balance of probabilities; corroboration and credibility. * Evidence – direct versus circumstantial evidence; inadmissible or extraneous factual reliance by trial court. * Civil procedure – appellate review – setting aside trial judgment when conclusions are unsupported by the record. * Delay and failure to report – effect on credibility and sufficiency of claim.
|
18 December 1992 |
|
|
4 December 1992 |
|
An appeal filed directly to the High Court without prior filing in the District Court breaches mandatory procedure and is struck out.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Statutory precondition under section 25(3) Magistrates' Court Act, 1984 – Appeal to High Court requires prior filing in District Court – Non‑compliance renders appeal improperly before High Court and subject to striking out.
|
4 December 1992 |
| November 1992 |
|
|
|
17 November 1992 |
|
A claimant lacking authority to sue for another’s land has no locus standi; lower courts’ judgments obtained thereby were set aside.
Property law – recovery of land – locus standi – claimant must have legal capacity or authority to sue for recovery of another’s land; judgments obtained by one without authority are vitiated and liable to be set aside; possession remains until rightful owner takes legal steps.
|
10 November 1992 |
| October 1992 |
|
|
Appellate court disturbed concurrent findings after finding misapprehension of evidence and declared appellant lawful owner of disputed land.
Land law – ownership and possession – evaluation of oral evidence, site visit and sketch map – appellate interference with concurrent findings of fact where there is misapprehension or miscarriage of justice – burden and proof on balance of probabilities.
|
30 October 1992 |
| September 1992 |
|
|
Appeal allowed where conviction for theft rested on suspicion and unsupported inferences; conviction quashed and appellant released.
Criminal law – Theft – Conviction based on conjecture and demeanour – Insufficient direct or circumstantial evidence – Unsafe conviction – Appeal allowed and conviction quashed – Appellant ordered released unless lawfully held.
|
30 September 1992 |
|
Appeal partly succeeds: conviction upheld for appellant clearly linked to stolen goods; other convictions quashed for insufficient/unsafe evidence.
Criminal law – Theft/possession – Sufficiency of evidence and credibility – Possession and surrounding circumstances may permit inference of guilt only where explanation and corroboration are lacking – Convictions unsafe where evidence inconsistent or merely inferential.
|
25 September 1992 |
|
|
15 September 1992 |
| August 1992 |
|
|
Conviction quashed where trial court relied on evidence given under a withdrawn charge and misapplied recent-possession doctrine.
Criminal procedure – withdrawal and substitution of charge – evidence given under withdrawn charge – necessity to re-call or properly place evidence for substituted charge; misdirection by trial magistrate; recent-possession principle; conviction unsafe due to procedural irregularity and contradictory prosecution evidence.
|
5 August 1992 |
| July 1992 |
|
|
Recent possession of a stolen item and failure to explain supported convictions for burglary and theft; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Burglary and theft – Recent possession of stolen property as sufficient circumstantial evidence – Identification supported by cash sale receipt – Accused's silence and failure to explain possession – Convictions and sentences upheld on appeal.
|
22 July 1992 |
|
Burglary convictions quashed where no breaking occurred and co-accused testimony was unreliable.
Criminal law – Burglary – requirement of breaking into a dwelling – absence of evidence of breaking defeats burglary conviction; Recent possession and evidential value – recovered exhibits not connected to accused; Credibility and assessment of co-accused’s testimony – contradictions and lack of corroboration render convictions unsafe; Appellate powers – quashing convictions, setting aside sentences and compensation orders under s 373(1).
|
15 July 1992 |
|
Conviction for cattle theft based on suspicion and conjecture quashed for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – theft of cattle – reliance on circumstantial evidence – proof beyond reasonable doubt required – conviction cannot rest on mere suspicion or conjecture – misdirection by trial court warrants quashing conviction.
|
1 July 1992 |
| June 1992 |
|
|
Conviction for theft of a calf quashed where prosecution failed to prove appellant led search or was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Theft of cattle – Circumstantial evidence and identification – Whether prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused led search party to carcass – Appellate interference where evidence inconsistent and conviction unsafe.
|
17 June 1992 |
| May 1992 |
|
|
Eyewitness and possession evidence upheld convictions; non-production of corroborative witness not fatal; sentences reduced to 18 months.
Criminal law – theft from motor vehicle – sufficiency and credibility of eyewitness evidence; failure to call corroborative witness; alleged police coaching of witnesses; appellate reduction of excessive sentence.
|
27 May 1992 |
|
Whether respondent's domicile was Rusimba or Tanga for leave travel allowance — court found Tanga and quashed trial finding.
Domicile — domicile of origin and domicile of choice — burden to prove change of domicile — evidentiary proof of principal abode; Labour/Employment law — s.130 Employment Ordinance — failure to refer to Labour Officer not fatal and does not oust court jurisdiction; Civil procedure — trial court's discretion to award costs.
|
19 May 1992 |
|
Appellants’ convictions for obtaining credit by false pretences quashed where trial relied on demeanour without s.212 record and prosecution evidence was contradictory.
* Criminal law – Obtaining credit by false pretences – Credibility of witnesses – Reliance on demeanour without recording under s.212 CPA (1985) – Contradictions in prosecution evidence – Unsafe conviction warrants quashing.
|
13 May 1992 |
|
Conviction quashed where trial misdirections and evidential gaps left guilt unproven beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Conviction as stealing by clerk – sufficiency of prosecution evidence – misdirection of trial magistrate – missing duplicate keys and fleeing watchman as alternative explanation – conviction unsafe.
|
13 May 1992 |
| April 1992 |
|
|
|
9 April 1992 |
| February 1992 |
|
Land law - Co-ownership - Division of the house in terms of its value and option to purchase the other’s share. |
28 February 1992 |
|
Conviction for goat theft quashed because identification and ownership evidence left reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Theft – Identification evidence – Whether evidence of seeing accused driving stolen animals was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Alternative suspect – Effect of prosecution’s failure to exclude another person seen with the animals.
* Criminal procedure – Right to call witnesses – Whether appellant was denied opportunity to call witnesses at trial.
* Evidence – Ownership and identification of recovered/slaughtered animals – necessity of proving link to complainant.
|
21 February 1992 |
|
Conviction for receiving stolen property cannot rest solely on a co‑accused's confession; knowledge must be proved.
Criminal law – Receiving stolen property – proof of knowledge or reasonable belief required under s.311(1) Penal Code; Evidence – conviction cannot rest solely on a co‑accused’s confession (s.33(2) Evidence Act); mere suspicion insufficient to prove knowledge.
|
12 February 1992 |
|
Conviction based only on a co-accused’s uncorroborated confession is unsafe without proof of knowledge the goods were stolen.
* Criminal law – Receiving stolen property – Necessity to prove receipt/retention plus knowledge or reasonable belief property was stolen (s.311(1) Penal Code).
* Evidence – Confession of co-accused – Conviction cannot be based solely on an uncorroborated co-accused confession (s.33(2) Evidence Act).
* Standard of proof – Mere suspicion insufficient to establish knowledge or reasonable belief.
|
12 February 1992 |
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Pleas - Equivocality and unequivocality of pleas; Statutory Interpretation - Whether section 63 (2) (a} of the Road Traffic Act creates a mandatory minimum sentence of two years imprisonment for offences committed under section 40 |
10 February 1992 |