|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| June 1994 |
|
|
Contradictions, missing witnesses and unreproduced exhibits made the prosecution evidence manifestly unreliable; accused acquitted.
Criminal law – Rape: elements – sexual intercourse and lack of consent; Evidence – credibility, contradictions, non-production of exhibits, failure to call material witnesses; Medical evidence – bruises insufficient to prove intercourse; Standard – manifestly unreliable evidence/no safe conviction.
|
30 June 1994 |
|
Accused convicted of manslaughter on his plea; court accepted mitigation and imposed imprisonment with remand credit.
Criminal law – Plea bargaining/plea to lesser charge – Acceptance of guilty plea to manslaughter where prosecution raises no objection and accused admits facts; sentencing – balancing gravity of causing death against mitigation (provocation, first offender, ill health, family responsibilities, credit for remand).
|
28 June 1994 |
|
Uncorroborated recovery and absent identification meant no prima facie case against the accused for aggravated robbery.
Criminal law – Robbery – Aggravated robbery – Requirement of prima facie case before calling accused to answer – Bhatt test; identification evidence – where complainant did not know or see accused; recovery of stolen property – necessity to exhibit recovered items and produce competent witnesses (police) to prove recovery and chain of custody.
|
28 June 1994 |
|
|
22 June 1994 |
|
|
22 June 1994 |
|
|
21 June 1994 |
|
Accused acquitted of defilement because prosecution failed to prove the complainant was under the statutory age.
Criminal law – Defilement – Essential ingredient: age of complainant – Where prosecution fails to prove statutory age, no prima facie case established – No‑case‑to‑answer submission succeeds; amendment of indictment not decided at no‑case stage.
|
15 June 1994 |
|
Accused convicted of manslaughter; court credits remand time and personal mitigation when imposing sentence.
Criminal law – Manslaughter – guilty plea accepted; sentencing principles – mitigation (voluntary surrender, remorse, first offender, dependents, ill‑health) – credit for time spent on remand.
|
15 June 1994 |
|
Court accepted guilty plea to manslaughter and imposed three years’ imprisonment, crediting remand and mitigating factors.
Criminal law – Manslaughter – Plea to lesser offence accepted where accused admits causing death but denies intent to kill. Sentencing – Mitigating factors: self‑reporting, guilty plea, extended remand, first‑offender status, serious illness (HIV/AIDS). Sentencing – Remand time to run against imposed sentence.
|
15 June 1994 |
|
A newspaper’s false allegations that the applicant encouraged forest encroachment were defamatory and not protected by privilege.
Defamation – publication of false allegations in newspaper headline and article; Qualified privilege – not available where publisher and source lack duty or interest to publish to public at large; Reckless publication – reckless disbelief or failure to verify can amount to malice; Damages – substantial award for reputational injury.
|
14 June 1994 |
|
Newspaper article and cartoon defamed the plaintiff; editorial was fair comment; damages and costs awarded.
Defamation — capacity to bear defamatory meaning; reference to plaintiff; justification (truth) — burden and proof in libel; fair comment on public interest; qualified privilege — scope; corporate authority to sue — sole director's instruction sufficient.
|
10 June 1994 |
|
|
10 June 1994 |
|
Conviction quashed where theft of cash was unproven, unsworn statement unfairly criticised and sentence improperly imposed.
Criminal law – theft – whether prosecution proved accused handled or converted complainant's money as charged – conviction cannot be founded on inference from sale of goods when charge alleges theft of cash. Criminal procedure – unsworn statement – accused must not be penalised for electing to make an unsworn statement; trial court must not improperly discredit it. Civil v criminal remedy – disputes over failed business ventures/debts are primarily civil matters and should not be enforced by criminal prosecution. Sentencing – fine imposed without inquiry into means and used as compensation is improper; sentencing must be reasoned and within statutory limits (Magistrates Courts Act).
|
10 June 1994 |
|
|
6 June 1994 |
|
Oral amendment to add damages in a summary debt claim refused as it would change the suit’s character and prejudice defendant.
Civil Procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Order 6 r 18 and r 30 – oral amendment at trial – interlocutory application by chamber summons. Civil Procedure – Summary procedure – claim for liquidated sum – limitations on adding unpleaded damages. Civil Procedure – Amendment refused where it changes character of action or causes prejudice/injustice to other party.
|
1 June 1994 |