|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2012 |
|
|
Whether a spouse's alleged remarriage or beneficiaries' status disqualifies her from appointment as administratix.
Administration of estates; appointment of administratix; validity of clan nomination; alleged remarriage of spouse as disqualification; effect of illegitimacy on appointment; afterthought nominations and evidential requirement for alleged unfair administration.
|
2 November 2012 |
|
Ex parte hearing was proper; appellant failed to prove ownership, so the appeal is dismissed with costs.
* Land law – proof of ownership – burden of proof lies on the party alleging ownership; failure to produce documents or police report undermines claim. * Civil procedure – ex parte hearing – Order 39 Rule 17(2) Civil Procedure Code authorizes hearing where respondent absent. * Evidence – credibility and sufficiency of evidence required to establish property rights.
|
2 November 2012 |
| October 2012 |
|
|
Appeal filed directly to the High Court without first lodging at the District Tribunal was incompetent and struck out.
* Land law – Appeals from Ward Tribunal – Mandatory filing route under section 38(2) and (3) of the Land Disputes Courts Act – petition must be filed in District Land and Housing Tribunal which forwards records to High Court. * Procedural non‑compliance renders appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out. * Assessors' opinions cannot cure a procedural jurisdictional defect.
|
31 October 2012 |
|
Adverse possession does not defeat registered title; prescription runs from the respondent’s acquisition of the land.
Land law – prescription/adverse possession – requirements (actual, visible, exclusive, hostile, continuous for statutory period); commencement of limitation period runs from purchaser’s acquisition of registered title; registered right of occupancy not defeasible by adverse possession; village authorities’ limited power to allocate registered land; caveat emptor and buyer’s duty to investigate.
|
24 October 2012 |
| September 2012 |
|
|
Appeal remitted for surveyor/land officer evidence to determine alleged encroachment; res judicata not established.
* Land law – boundary disputes – requirement for land officer/surveyor evidence where beacons are disputed and part of the land is unsurveyed. * Evidence – probative value of land officer letters versus oral/field survey evidence. * Procedure – remittal for further evidence where tribunal misdirected on factual foundation. * Res judicata – necessity of proof of earlier conclusive judgment involving same parties and subject matter.
|
14 September 2012 |
|
High Court struck out appeal as incompetent for bypassing mandatory District Tribunal stage under section 38(2).
Appeal procedure – Ward Tribunal appeals – mandatory first appeal to District Land and Housing Tribunal under s.38(2) of Act No.2 of 2002 – competence of appeal – court may raise jurisdictional defects sua sponte – appeal struck out for being improperly filed.
|
14 September 2012 |
| August 2012 |
|
|
Reported
A majority shareholder lacks locus to object to attachment of company property without a specific proprietary interest.
Company law – separate legal personality – company property distinct from shareholders' property; Execution – locus standi to object to attachment – shareholder not entitled absent specific proprietary interest; Civil Procedure – improper invocation of Order XXI and section 68(e) CPC by shareholder; Revision – exercise of section 44 Magistrates' Courts Act to correct irregular attachment ruling.
|
10 August 2012 |
|
A shareholder lacks locus to object to attachment of company property absent a specific proprietary interest.
Civil procedure – execution – attachment of company property – locus standi of shareholders to object – corporate personality; Order XXI Rules and section 68(e) CPC; shareholder must show specific proprietary interest to object.
|
10 August 2012 |
|
Conspiracy charge discharged; five accused convicted of trafficking 92.2 kg heroin hydrochloride, one acquitted; heavy fines, 25-year terms, vehicles forfeited.
* Criminal law – Drugs – Trafficking in narcotic drugs – Recovery of 95 packets totalling 92.20 kg – Laboratory confirmation as heroin hydrochloride – conviction. * Criminal law – Conspiracy – Discharge where object of conspiracy completed and substantive offence proved. * Evidence – Dock identification and civilian witnesses corroborating police search and seizure. * Statutory interpretation – "heroin hydrochloride" as derivative within scheduled term "heroin".
|
10 August 2012 |
|
Primary and District Courts lacked jurisdiction over compensation for crops and house; matter must be heard by a land tribunal.
* Jurisdiction – jurisdictional objections may be raised at any stage; jurisdiction is fundamental. * Land law – plants and buildings attached to land constitute 'land' under the Land Act and Village Land Act. * Jurisdictional limits – Primary and District Courts lack jurisdiction to determine land disputes listed under section 167; proper forum is the land tribunal.
|
3 August 2012 |
| July 2012 |
|
|
Driver’s negligent overtaking on a hill caused collision; employer held vicariously liable and ordered to pay substantial damages.
* Road traffic torts – liability for negligent overtaking on a hill/corner – causation and sketch map evidence.
* Vicarious liability – employer liable for employee driver negligent acts committed in course of employment.
* Damages – proof of special damages requires pleading and documentary proof; repair estimate and inspection report acceptable evidence.
* Insurance – insurer’s assessment/offer does not automatically absolve tortfeasor unless payment to claimant is proved.
|
26 July 2012 |
| June 2012 |
|
|
Administratrix’s claim timely but struck out for suing wrong defendant; amendment at objection stage refused; costs awarded.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objections – improper timing of amendment applications when preliminary objections are pending.
* Limitation – Fatal Accidents Act – six‑month period for representatives computed from grant of letters of administration.
* Tort – fatal accident claims – proper defendant and vicarious liability – owner versus trading name/director.
* Pleading – non‑disclosure of cause of action and consequences (striking out).
|
22 June 2012 |
|
Uninterrupted possession exceeding twelve years established adverse possession; trial tribunal affirmed and appeal allowed with costs.
* Land law – Adverse possession – uninterrupted occupation for more than twelve years vests ownership.
* Evidence – Section 110 Evidence Act – burden to prove assertions; failure to prove that land was 'borrowed'.
* Possession – invitee doctrine – an invitee does not acquire ownership by long occupancy.
* Civil procedure – appellate review – reversal of tribunal decision where law and evidence inadequately considered.
|
20 June 2012 |
|
Non-joinder of necessary parties rendered the applicant's property suit incompetent; appeal partly allowed and suit struck out.
Civil procedure – Non-joinder of necessary parties (seller/receiver/auctioneer) – Order 1 r.10(2) CPC – failure to implead fatal; Property dispute – sale by public auction – legality and bona fide purchaser issues not determinable without seller/receiver evidence; Pleadings – necessity to amend to add proper/necessary parties.
|
15 June 2012 |
|
Reported
Appeal to High Court was time-barred; District Court’s overreaching orders quashed and Primary Court’s administrator appointment restored.
* Probate/Administration – appointment of administrator – Primary Court appointment restored. * Appeals – limitation period for appeals from District Court to High Court governed by s.25(1)(b) Magistrate Courts Act (30 days). * Appeals from Primary Court – limitation runs from date of delivery of judgment; petition to District Court need not be accompanied by copy of judgment. * Appellate jurisdiction – District Court exceeded jurisdiction by determining proprietary rights and ordering lifetime occupation. * Revision – High Court’s power under s.29(b) to quash and set aside proceedings and orders.
|
1 June 2012 |
|
Appeal was time-barred; High Court used revisional powers to quash District Court orders and restore the administrator.
* Civil procedure — Appeal period from District Court to High Court — s.25(1)(b) Magistrate Courts Act — thirty-day limit; time limit runs from date of delivery for matters originating in Primary Court. * Law of Limitation — copy of judgment does not postpone commencement of limitation period for Primary Court-originating matters. * Probate and administration — District Court exceeded jurisdiction by deciding proprietary rights and life possession in probate matter. * Revisional jurisdiction — High Court may invoke s.29(b) Magistrate Courts Act to quash proceedings and restore Primary Court appointment.
|
1 June 2012 |
| March 2012 |
|
|
Appellate court wrongly revoked administrator appointment because ownership disputes do not invalidate appointment.
Probate — Appointment of administrator — Effect of disputed ownership of assets on appointment — Administrator’s duty to collect and distribute estate impartially — Remedies for third-party ownership claims.
|
29 March 2012 |
|
Court granted leave to bring a representative suit and ordered notification of all interested persons.
Representative proceedings — Order 1 Rule 8(1) CPC and s.95 — Ex parte application for leave to sue on behalf of others — Requirement to notify interested persons.
|
23 March 2012 |
|
A court cannot distribute a deceased’s estate—the administrator holds that duty; revocation stands but distribution orders are nullified.
* Probate & Administration – Revocation of administrator – Court’s power to distribute estate versus administrator’s statutory duty to distribute. * Estate administration – Duty to file inventory and account – effect on discharge and return of distributed funds. * Civil procedure – Limits on Primary Court jurisdiction over land rights – referral to Land and Housing Tribunal for land disputes. * Remedies – Heirs’ personal right to sue to recover improperly distributed or concealed estate assets.
|
16 March 2012 |
| February 2012 |
|
|
Reported
A court cannot distribute a deceased's estate; only an administrator may, and heirs may sue to recover misapplied assets.
Probate and administration – Power to distribute deceased's estate vests in the administrator, not the trial court; revocation of administrator; heirs' right to sue for recovery of misapplied estate assets; administrator's discharge contingent on filing an inventory.
|
16 February 2012 |