|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 2018 |
|
|
A valid DPP certificate under s.36(2) EOCCA bars bail unless withdrawn or special circumstances justify override.
* Criminal procedure – Bail – Effect of Director of Public Prosecutions’ certificate under s.36(2) EOCCA – Validity tests (in writing; safety/interests of Republic; relates to pending/awaiting trial) and timing of filing. * Filing formalities – No prescribed format for DPP certificate; court stamp and official crest sufficient to show presentation. * Challenge to DPP certificate – Burden to prove bad faith, abuse of process or special circumstances to override certificate.
|
15 March 2018 |
|
Subsequent bail application struck out because a valid DPP certificate remained operative, so reasons for prior refusal persisted.
* Criminal procedure – Bail – Subsequent bail application – Competence of same court where earlier bail refused due to DPP certificate; * Doctrine of functus officio – applicability where matter finally determined; * Preliminary objection – point of law under Mukisa principle; * Requirement of change of circumstances or withdrawal of DPP certificate before rehearing.
|
14 March 2018 |
|
Verification clause naming 'applicant' instead of 'deponent' rendered affidavit incurably defective; bail application struck out.
* Civil procedure – Affidavit requirements – verification clause must be signed by the deponent and authenticate source of facts; omission of 'deponent' may render affidavit defective and incurable.
* Evidence – Jurat and verification – jurat and verification are distinct ingredients; both must properly identify the deponent.
* Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – procedural non‑compliance as a point of law to be determined before merits.
* Amendment – Verification clause defects generally not amendable where they affect authentication of facts.
|
14 March 2018 |
|
High Court granted bail in an economic offence matter, imposing EOCCA-prescribed financial and reporting conditions.
Economic offences — Bail — Jurisdiction under EOCCA ss.29(4)(d) & 36(1); Competency of bail application; Conditions under EOCCA ss.36(5) & (6) — deposit of half property value; sureties and bonds; surrender of travel documents; reporting obligations.
|
13 March 2018 |
|
Bail refused because alleged heroin amount (375.20g) exceeds statutory 20g threshold rendering the offence non-bailable.
* Criminal procedure – Bail – Drug trafficking – Section 29(1)(a) Drug Control and Enforcement Act: trafficking listed narcotics of 20 grams or more is non-bailable; evidential questions of type and weight are for trial, not bail stage.
* Evidence – Role of Government Analyst – Court will not call or require substantive proof of drug type/weight at bail as it would amount to premature trial.
* Civil procedure – Counter-affidavits – Failure to file counter-affidavit does not preclude legal opposition at hearing where matters are legal rather than factual.
|
9 March 2018 |