|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 2021 |
|
|
Extension of time denied where applicant failed to account for delay and alleged illegality was not established.
Land appeal — extension of time to appeal; requirements under Lyamuya (account for delay, absence of inordinate delay, diligence, or sufficient reasons such as established illegality); overriding objective principle — cannot cure mandatory procedural defects affecting tribunal composition and right to be heard.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
|
24 September 2021 |
|
Prosecution’s circumstantial and electronic evidence was unreliable; case dismissed and the accused acquitted.
Criminal law – Organized crime and theft charges arising from a train accident; circumstantial evidence must be watertight; chain of custody and proper seizure of exhibits essential; cyber‑forensic evidence must be authenticated (hash values, reliable timestamps); cautioned statements and altered documents may be unreliable without proper explanation; expert evidence (mechanical/engineering) necessary to resolve technical causation issues.
|
21 September 2021 |
|
Counts under section 4(3)(i)(i) must expressly plead acts were made for the purpose of advancing or supporting terrorism; defective counts must be amended.
* Criminal procedure – preliminary objections – sufficiency and form of charge sheet in terrorism cases; requirement to plead purpose under s.4(3)(i)(i) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. * Criminal law – conspiracy vs substantive offences – duplicity/multiplicity and double jeopardy. * Statutory construction – 'terrorist intention' and limits of judicial intervention versus parliamentary record (Hansard).
|
6 September 2021 |
|
The Corruption and Economic Crimes Division has jurisdiction to try terrorism offences after purposive reading of amendments classifying them as economic offences.
* Jurisdiction – Corruption and Economic Crimes Division – whether it may try offences under the Prevention of Terrorism Act after Act No. 3 of 2016 amended Cap 200 (paragraph 24).
* Statutory interpretation – purposive construction and doctrine against absurdity where two statutes appear to confer jurisdiction.
* Exclusivity – absence of express exclusivity means concurrent jurisdiction may exist; unamended provisions do not necessarily oust Division's jurisdiction.
|
1 September 2021 |