|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 1994 |
|
|
Credible prosecution testimony upheld convictions; an illegal seven‑year sentence was quashed and replaced with four years on appeal.
Criminal law – impersonation of police officer; obtaining property by false pretences – credibility of direct witnesses – trial court’s acceptance of prosecution evidence – subordinate court’s sentencing limits – illegal sentence substituted on appeal.
|
24 November 1994 |
| October 1994 |
|
|
Proceedings under an uncommenced Arms Act were invalid; lack of DPP consent/certificate rendered the trial a nullity.
* Criminal procedure – jurisdiction – trial under statute not yet brought into force – charges laid under inoperative Arms and Ammunition Act 1991 invalid. * Criminal procedure – Economic and Organized Crimes Control Act (No.13/1984) – requirement of DPP consent and certificate for subordinate courts to try certain offences. * Nullity – absence of DPP’s consent/certificate renders proceedings void for want of jurisdiction.
|
19 October 1994 |
|
Convictions based on recent possession overturned due to investigative defects creating reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – possession of suspected stolen goods – doctrine of recent possession – quality of investigation and corroboration required to exclude reasonable doubt – failure to verify suspects’ statements undermines prosecution case.
|
4 October 1994 |
| September 1994 |
|
|
Appellate court quashed burglary conviction for procedural defects and released appellant found drunk in a livestock pen.
* Criminal law – Burglary (s.294(1) Penal Code) – sufficiency of evidence where accused found inside livestock pen at night.
* Criminal procedure – Trial magistrate’s duty to deliver a judgment (statement of reasons) – failure to do so is a serious procedural irregularity.
* Appellate remedies – discretion to quash conviction or order retrial; interests of justice may favour quashing and setting aside sentence.
|
29 September 1994 |
|
Conviction for shopbreaking upheld, but five-year mandatory sentence reduced to three years due to lack of evidence of value.
Criminal law – shopbreaking – adequacy and credibility of prosecution witnesses – defence of planted evidence – Minimum Sentences Act/scheduled offence – necessity to prove value threshold before imposing mandatory sentence.
|
14 September 1994 |
|
The appellant's conviction was quashed for insufficient evidence and improper reliance on an accomplice's statement and an equivocal guilty plea.
Criminal law – Receiving/possession of stolen property – Insufficiency of evidence – Improper reliance on accomplice’s statement – Equivocal plea of guilty – Appellate quashing of conviction; no retrial ordered.
|
14 September 1994 |
| August 1994 |
|
|
s.296(1) creates a single offence of breaking and committing felony; separate convictions were wrong and sentence revised to five years.
Criminal law – Charge and conviction — Section 296(1) Penal Code creates a single composite offence of breaking and committing a felony — improper conviction on separate counts of breaking and stealing — appellate revisionary powers to quash convictions and substitute correct conviction and sentence; accused night watchmen’s failure to explain occurrence as evidential factor.
|
12 August 1994 |
| July 1994 |
|
|
Seizure of bride-price cattle without judicial remedy is unlawful; bride price cannot be reclaimed while marriage subsists.
* Customary law and marriage – bride price (lobola) – cannot be reclaimed or lawfully seized while marriage subsists; remedy is judicial action, not self-help.
* Civil procedure – unlawful seizure of property – elders’ informal agreement does not confer enforceable right to seize another’s cattle.
* Evidence – lack of cogent proof that defendant induced or abducted spouse prevents civil liability for that alleged conduct.
|
4 July 1994 |
| May 1994 |
|
|
Appeal allowed in part: battery‑theft conviction upheld, pistol/cash theft conviction quashed, omnibus two‑year sentence substituted with 18 months.
Criminal law – Theft from motor vehicle – Ocular identification – sufficiency of evidence to prove accused stole specific items; appellate review of convictions; omnibus sentence set aside and substituted.
|
25 May 1994 |
|
The court held the parties' marriage irretrievably broken and upheld the primary court's dissolution.
Family law – Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown – Credibility and corroboration of accusations and conduct (including alleged witchcraft) as evidence of loss of trust – Appellate review of primary court’s factual findings.
|
13 May 1994 |
| April 1994 |
|
|
|
18 April 1994 |
|
A single, distant identification without adequate corroboration and a misapplied standard of proof rendered the convictions unsafe.
* Criminal law – identification evidence – reliability of identification made at about 100 metres – need for caution and corroboration. * Standard of proof – trial court must apply proof beyond reasonable doubt, not civil balance of probabilities. * Conviction unsafe where prosecution relies on single uncorroborated eyewitness identification.
|
6 April 1994 |
|
Rape conviction and seven-year sentence upheld; robbery conviction replaced with concurrent two-year sentence for simple theft.
* Criminal law – Rape – sufficiency of evidence – carnal knowledge and force; credibility of complainant’s account. * Criminal law – Robbery v. theft – requirement that force be used for the purpose of stealing; where intent to steal formed after assault, robbery not established. * Appeals – new factual allegations and defences raised for first time on appeal are ordinarily not entertained. * Appellate substitution – where robbery not proved, conviction may be substituted for simple theft with appropriate sentence adjustment.
|
6 April 1994 |
| March 1994 |
|
|
Conviction based solely on skin-colour identification of a skinned cow is unsafe; burden of proof remains on the prosecution.
Criminal law – Theft of cattle – Identification evidence – Skinned carcass identified by skin colour – Insufficiency of colour-based identification; Burden of proof – Prosecution’s duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; Misdirection – Trial magistrate not to shift burden to accused by criticising failure to call corroborative witnesses.
|
24 March 1994 |
| February 1994 |
|
|
Circumstantial evidence and the accused's silence upheld a theft conviction; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Theft – Circumstantial evidence – Sufficiency and cogency of incriminating circumstances; Criminal procedure – Right to remain silent – Failure to testify does not shift burden but may strengthen prosecution case; Appeal – Criminal conviction and sentence affirmed where circumstantial evidence is strong.
|
3 February 1994 |
|
Appeal against theft conviction dismissed where strong circumstantial evidence and the appellant’s silence reinforced the prosecution's case.
Criminal law – Theft – Circumstantial evidence – Sufficiency and cogency of circumstantial proof; Criminal procedure – Accused’s silence – Failure to testify or explain incriminating circumstances may strengthen prosecution case but does not shift burden of proof; Appeal – Review of conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
|
3 February 1994 |
| January 1994 |
|
|
Evidence failed to prove respondent’s exclusive interest; court ordered equal division, injunctive restraint, damages and costs.
* Succession / Property – dispute over ownership of farm after deaths – whether respondent acquired interest by marriage or succession; evidence required to prove proprietary interest.
* Co‑occupation and conduct – long continuation of joint occupation may justify partition/equal division as an equitable remedy.
* Interim and final relief – injunction to restrain transfer of disputed land; award of general damages and costs.
|
7 January 1994 |