|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1993 |
|
|
Railway employees negligently burned grass causing destructive fire; employer held vicariously liable and plaintiff awarded damages.
Negligence – burning of vegetation along railway reserve – evidence by eyewitness foremen – causation and foreseeability of fire spread – vicarious liability of railway corporation for employees' negligent acts – assessment of loss to agricultural estate.
|
31 December 1993 |
| November 1993 |
|
|
|
30 November 1993 |
|
Appeal allowed: lower court lacked territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction; probate proceedings and administrator’s appointment quashed.
Probate and Administration — Jurisdiction — Territorial jurisdiction under s.6 Probate and Administration Ordinance — Pecuniary jurisdiction of District Courts limited to small estates not exceeding Shs 30,000/= — Proceedings and appointments made by a court lacking jurisdiction are a nullity and liable to be quashed.
|
10 November 1993 |
| August 1993 |
|
|
Inadmissible medical evidence and circumstantial inconsistencies raised reasonable doubt, quashing the robbery conviction and substituting assault.
Criminal law – robbery with violence – insufficiency of evidence – inadmissibility of medical report (PF3) without doctor's oral testimony – circumstantial inconsistencies (partial removal of victim's money) raising reasonable doubt – appellate substitution of conviction for lesser offence under Criminal Procedure Act ss 300(1), 366(1)(a)(ii); conviction quashed and substituted with assault (s240 Penal Code).
|
25 August 1993 |
|
|
19 August 1993 |
| July 1993 |
|
|
|
29 July 1993 |
|
|
29 July 1993 |
|
|
15 July 1993 |
| May 1993 |
|
|
An equivocal guilty plea based on facts suggesting a lawful explanation renders a conviction unsafe and may be quashed.
Criminal law – Stealing by servant (s.270 Penal Code) – Plea of guilty – When plea is equivocal because admitted facts may negative criminality – Unequivocal plea required for conviction – Discretion as to ordering retrial.
|
26 May 1993 |
|
The appellant’s conviction for obtaining money by false pretences was quashed for lack of evidence of intent to defraud.
Criminal law – Obtaining by false pretences (s.302 Penal Code) – Essential elements: false representation and intent to defraud – Insufficient evidence where complainant accepted work and entered subsequent contract phase; Civil contractual dispute improperly converted into criminal proceedings.
|
24 May 1993 |
|
Quashing a criminal conviction on jurisdictional grounds does not automatically entitle the convicted party to costs in a related civil defamation suit.
Civil procedure – withdrawal of suit after quashing of related criminal conviction; effect of quashed conviction on civil defamation claim; costs – when party who withdraws suit is not liable for costs; attendance and prior guilty plea as factors affecting entitlement to costs.
|
20 May 1993 |
|
Appellant’s conviction for theft from a motor vehicle upheld; sentence reduced from five to two years as manifestly excessive.
Theft from motor vehicle – identification and credibility of eyewitnesses – appellate deference to trial magistrate’s findings; sentencing – manifestly excessive sentence; reduction of term on appeal.
|
17 May 1993 |
| April 1993 |
|
|
Appeal allowed where respondent failed to prove burglary or enforce a disputed settlement document; trial court misdirected.
Civil claim arising from alleged burglary and settlement document; evidential burden where criminal conduct is implicated; admissibility and weight of a disputed written agreement (Annexure A); credibility assessment and appellate review for misdirection.
|
15 April 1993 |
|
Appellant may not relitigate unappealed criminal findings in a civil suit; appeal dismissed.
* Civil procedure – issue preclusion/effect of prior criminal findings – failure to appeal bars relitigation in subsequent civil suit.
* Evidence – credibility of claimant’s evidence in a monetary claim supports award of damages and costs.
* Criminal law – prior conviction not reopened in civil court where no appeal was taken.
|
15 April 1993 |
| March 1993 |
|
|
Appellate court held that absent clear on-record orders or evidence, a district court could not be treated as having validly divested primary court proceedings of jurisdiction.
* Civil procedure – jurisdiction – whether a district court may set aside or divest a primary court’s appointment/administration order absent clear on-record jurisdictional basis. * Procedural law – competence of primary court to continue proceedings where related matters are pending before another court – burden on challenger to show nullity by reference to orders or record.
|
29 March 1993 |
|
Court quashed convictions where single-witness identification lacked adequate supporting circumstances and raised reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – Single-witness identification requires extreme caution – Trial court must describe conditions (lighting, distance, description) and consider conduct of witness (alarm-raising, delay in arrest) – Failure to address these factors may render conviction unsafe – Appellate and revisional powers to quash conviction entered in absence.
|
26 March 1993 |
|
|
25 March 1993 |
| January 1993 |
|
|
Appellate court upheld trial court’s damages award for detention and loss of income, finding no misdirection or perversity.
Civil appeal – assessment of damages – loss of income and detention at police station – appellate interference limited where trial court’s credibility findings and quantum are supported by evidence.
|
28 January 1993 |
|
Appeal dismissed for lack of proof of kinship and failure to obtain letters of administration.
* Inheritance law – proof of kinship – sufficiency of evidence to establish heirship; * Civil procedure – locus standi to sue in respect of deceased estate – requirement to obtain letters of administration before recovery actions; * Credibility and consistency of claimant’s assertions affecting entitlement to inherit.
|
21 January 1993 |
|
Conviction unsafe where trial judge failed to state points for determination, give reasons, or consider the defence.
Criminal procedure — Judgment requirements — Duty to state points for determination, decision and reasons — Failure to summarise or consider defence — Procedural irregularities rendering conviction unsafe.
|
1 January 1993 |