|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 1995 |
|
|
Accused acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter where malice aforethought was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Murder – Elements: unlawful killing, identity of killer, and malice aforethought – burden on prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence – must exclude reasonable alternative explanations and co‑existing factors – Simon Musoke principle. Confession/evidence conflict – where medical and accused’s accounts disagree it may be unsafe to convict for murder. Intoxication and provocation – may negate malice aforethought and reduce liability to manslaughter
Manslaughter – appropriate verdict where intent to kill not proved
|
20 September 1995 |
|
Conviction for embezzlement upheld on circumstantial evidence; illegal sentence set aside and file remitted for statutory sentencing and compensation.
Criminal law – Embezzlement – Circumstantial evidence and corroboration – Appellate re-evaluation of facts – Burden of proof – Mandatory minimum sentence (s.257) and compensation order (s.259) under the Penal Code Act.
|
15 September 1995 |
|
|
15 September 1995 |
|
Conviction for defilement based on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence, rejecting absence of medical proof and defense claims.
Criminal Law - Defilement - Proof of guilt based on circumstantial evidence - Lack of direct testimony - Irresistible impulse as a defense.
|
7 September 1995 |
|
Where the complainant's absence leaves only suspicion, a submission of no case to answer must be upheld and the accused acquitted.
Criminal law – Defilement – Whether prosecution made out a prima facie case to put accused to answer – Submission of no case to answer
Evidence – Absence of complainant’s testimony – failure to connect accused to offence
Principle – Suspicion alone insufficient to convict (Israil Epuka s/o Achietu v R)
Procedure – Application of R.T. Bhatt v R test for no-case submissions
Order – Acquittal under section 71(1) TID where no case to answer is established
|
1 September 1995 |
|
Accused convicted of defilement based on medical evidence, an admission, and corroborative circumstantial proof despite child’s inability to testify.
Criminal law – Defilement (s.123(1) Penal Code) – elements: unlawful sexual intercourse and victim under 18 years
Evidence – Medical opinion and witness observations as proof of sexual intercourse where complainant is too young to testify
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence and its requirement to point only to the accused (Simon Musoke)
Evidence – Admissibility and weight of an extra‑judicial admission (distinguished as admission, not full confession) and corroboration by accused’s conduct (attempt to flee)
Procedure – Child’s incompetence to testify does not bar conviction if other reliable evidence proves the offence
|
1 September 1995 |
| August 1995 |
|
|
A company need not always produce a board resolution to commence proceedings; authority may be proved on evidence.
Company law – capacity to sue – board resolution not always required; authority may be shown by other means depending on company constitution; Civil procedure – notice of motion is a 'suit' under s.2 CPA; preliminary objection based on authority may be premature on interlocutory hearing; unpleaded offers to deposit money should not be relied on; Order 33 judgment applications require formal procedure.
|
30 August 1995 |
|
Whether the applicant company required a board resolution to sue — court held the objection premature to decide.
Company law – capacity to sue – Article 80 (Table A) – board resolution not always required; affidavit by company officer and authority to litigate; preliminary objection premature; Order 33 summary procedure; unpleaded offer to deposit security inadmissible.
|
30 August 1995 |
|
Officials acting for a school cannot be sued personally for trespass absent evidence of personal trespass or benefit.
Tort — Trespass to land — completion on entry — distinction between personal trespass and acts done in official/institutional capacity; Civil procedure — parties — suing public/institutional officers in personal vs official capacity; Remedies — impracticability of ordering demolition against former office-holders; Proper defendants for relief affecting school property — institution/board or officers in official capacity.
|
30 August 1995 |
|
Appellate court upholds attempted theft conviction but quashes false‑information conviction due to unresolved evidential contradiction.
Criminal law – attempted theft – sufficiency of evidence despite miscalculation of exact sums; False reporting to police – contradictions on why cheque bounced require resolution; Handwriting expert evidence – admissible where author admits writing document; Appeal – interference with sentence only where manifestly harsh.
|
25 August 1995 |
|
|
18 August 1995 |
|
Prosecution failed to prove a deadly-weapon threat or accused's participation; accused acquitted and exhibits returned.
Criminal law – Robbery: elements of aggravated robbery (theft, violence, threat/use of deadly weapon) – Hearsay and deceased victim’s statement – Identification and contradictory eyewitness evidence – Burden of proof and reasonable doubt – Return of exhibits to accused.
|
15 August 1995 |
| July 1995 |
|
|
Court convicts and sentences accused for defiling a minor, with corroborated testimony and medical evidence outweighing retracted confession.
Criminal Law – Defilement – elements of proof – admissibility of retracted confession – age determination of a minor.
|
12 July 1995 |
|
State held liable for NRA soldiers’ seizure of plaintiff’s lorry; replacement value and loss of earnings awarded.
Detinue/conversion – proof of ownership and possession – seizure and commandeering of vehicle by soldiers – State liability for torts of soldiers proximate to and incidental to assumption of power – assessment of replacement value and loss of earnings in detinue.
|
11 July 1995 |
|
Court convicts and sentences accused to 11 years for rape based on credible identification and lack of consent.
Criminal law – Rape – Elements of penetration and lack of consent – Identification of the accused – Alibi defense.
|
7 July 1995 |
|
High Court confirms four-year sentence imposed on the accused after an unequivocal guilty plea to indecent assault.
Criminal procedure — Confirmation of sentences — Magistrates Courts Act s.167(1)(2)(a) — Plea of guilty — Conviction based on unequivocal plea and admitted facts — Indecent assault (Penal Code s.122(1))
|
7 July 1995 |
|
High Court confirmed a three-year imprisonment for the accused convicted of grievous harm, finding the sentence appropriate.
Criminal law – Grievous harm (s212 Penal Code Act) – Confirmation of sentence under s167 Magistrates Courts Act 1970 (as amended) – Sufficiency of evidence – Appropriateness of custodial sentence
|
7 July 1995 |
|
|
7 July 1995 |
|
High Court confirmed a three-year sentence for attempted arson after finding the guilty plea unequivocal and the conviction proper.
Criminal law – Attempted arson – Conviction on guilty plea – Acceptance of unequivocal plea – Sentencing – Confirmation of sentence under s.167 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1970 (as amended) where imprisonment exceeds two years – Grade I Magistrate.
|
7 July 1995 |
|
|
6 July 1995 |
|
|
6 July 1995 |
|
The accused was acquitted of defilement due to lack of corroborative evidence in a child's testimony.
Criminal Law – Defilement - Conviction on unsworn statement of child - Requirements for corroborative evidence.
|
5 July 1995 |
|
Insufficient evidence led to the acquittal of an accused in a defilement case involving a minor.
Criminal law – Defilement – Proof of age and sexual intercourse – Corroboration of complainant's testimony – Alibi defense.
|
3 July 1995 |
|
|
1 July 1995 |
|
Eyewitness and medical evidence proved unlawful group beating causing death, but not malice aforethought; accused convicted of manslaughter.
Criminal law – Unlawful killing – Admissibility and corroboration of dying declarations; Eyewitness identification – reliability of identification evidence; Joint liability – participation in group beating and liability under section 22; Distinction between murder and manslaughter – requirement to prove malice aforethought; Defences considered – provocation and intoxication.
|
1 July 1995 |
| June 1995 |
|
|
|
29 June 1995 |
|
Credible victim testimony plus medical detection of sperm corroborated intercourse; forensic linkage to accused was circumstantial but conviction entered.
Criminal law – Defilement – Elements: victim under 18, unlawful sexual intercourse, identity of accused; corroboration in sexual offences – medical evidence of spermatozoa as corroboration of intercourse; limitations of forensic evidence – presence of sperm in accused’s urine not dispositive without comparative testing; credibility and identification of prosecutrix.
|
29 June 1995 |
|
|
21 June 1995 |
|
|
16 June 1995 |
|
Intoxication undermined proof of malice aforethought; unlawful striking causing death resulted in manslaughter conviction.
Criminal law – homicide – proof of death without post-mortem – accident defence – intoxication and malice aforethought – conviction for manslaughter where intent for murder not proved.
|
16 June 1995 |
|
Victim under 18 proved, but lack of corroboration and inconclusive medical linkage led to acquittal for defilement.
Criminal law – Defilement – Elements: age, unlawful sexual intercourse (penetration), identity – Corroboration requirement for unsworn child evidence – Medical evidence of hymenal rupture insufficient alone to prove penile intercourse or link accused without forensic corroboration.
|
16 June 1995 |
|
|
16 June 1995 |
|
A director who contracts in the company’s name for personal benefit must indemnify the company for resulting liabilities.
Company law – director’s fiduciary duty – secret profits and accountability – equitable indemnity against director who contracts in company’s name for personal benefit – third-party notice; Civil Procedure Order 1 r.18 & r.21.
|
12 June 1995 |
|
Prosecution failed to prove victim’s age beyond reasonable doubt; unreasoned medical opinion rejected and accused acquitted.
Criminal law – Defilement – proof of age as essential element – expert medical opinion must disclose reasons – conflicting parental testimony creates reasonable doubt – benefit of doubt to accused.
|
12 June 1995 |
|
Whether the Attorney General is vicariously liable for an officer's refusal to permit entry that led to property damage.
Vicarious liability — course of employment — proof of special damages — negligence in mitigation — evidential contradictions and balance of probabilities.
|
10 June 1995 |
|
|
8 June 1995 |
|
Intoxicated lorry driver's unsafe overtaking caused injuries; vehicle owner vicariously liable and damages awarded.
Negligence – road traffic accident – weight of prior inconsistent statements and police accident report/sketch plan – driving under influence as evidence of negligence – vicarious liability of vehicle owner – proof and assessment of personal injury damages.
|
7 June 1995 |
|
Conflicting age evidence does not defeat a prima facie defilement case where parental testimony sufficiently proves the victim's minority.
Criminal law — Prima facie case — Test from Bhatt v R — No‑case submission — Defilement elements (victim under 18, unlawful intercourse, accused) — Age proved by parent — Medical report without explanatory reasons has limited weight — Victim's consent immaterial.
|
7 June 1995 |
|
An individual who is neither director nor shareholder lacked authority to sue in the company’s name; proceedings were improper and costs awarded.
Company law – authority to sue – who may institute proceedings on behalf of a company – directors and shareholders; Company law – unauthorised commencement of suit – ratification and its requirements; Civil procedure – striking out actions plainly lacking capacity; Costs – solicitor-and-client and party-and-party awards for improper institution of proceedings.
|
6 June 1995 |
|
Proceedings in a company’s name instituted by a person without authority are a nullity unless validly ratified; costs may be ordered against the instigating party.
Company law – capacity and authority to sue – proceedings brought in a company’s name by a person who is not a director or shareholder – want of authority a nullity unless validly ratified – ratification must come from proper corporate organ – objection to authority may be struck out if defect plainly appears; costs consequences where proceedings improperly instituted.
|
6 June 1995 |
|
Guilty plea to manslaughter accepted; young first offender sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
Criminal law — Manslaughter (s.182 Penal Code) — plea to lesser/cognate offence accepted — conviction based on admitted facts and confession — sentencing discretion; mitigating factors: youth, guilty plea, remand time, intoxication.
|
6 June 1995 |
|
The accused received six years' imprisonment for defilement of an eight‑year‑old despite the offence carrying the death penalty.
Criminal law – Defilement (s.123(1) Penal Code) – Sentence – discretion to impose less than statutory maximum – first offender, guilty plea and time on remand as mitigating factors – voluntary intoxication not a valid excuse – medical evidence corroborating sexual assault on a child.
|
6 June 1995 |
| May 1995 |
|
|
Accused sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for manslaughter after drunken altercation results in brother's death.
Criminal Law – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty – Sentence considerations – Intoxication as mitigating factor in sentencing.
|
31 May 1995 |
|
Forfeiture of recognisance, unlawful taxation/enforcement of private costs, improper attachments, and correction of excessive default sentences.
Criminal procedure – recognisance/bail forfeiture – forfeiture requires sworn evidence of breach under Magistrates’ Court Act
Costs – private prosecutor’s bill cannot be enforced absent an express costs order in judgment
Enforcement – attachment of property and arrest to enforce an unlawfully-allowed bill of costs is unlawful. Judicial power – Chief Magistrate’s attachment of complainant’s property lacked legal authority
Sentencing – default imprisonment in lieu of fines must conform to statutory scale under the Magistrates’ Court Act
|
31 May 1995 |
|
Forfeiture of bail, taxation and enforcement of costs without a costs order, and excessive default sentences were unlawful and corrected on revision.
Criminal procedure – forfeiture of recognisance – need for sworn evidence of breach; Costs – taxation and enforcement require an order for costs; Attachment/arrest to enforce costs unlawful absent order; Magistrates’ Courts Act s.192(d) – statutory limits on default sentences.
|
31 May 1995 |
|
Confessions corroborated by forensic evidence established joint liability, but lack of proven malice reduced conviction to manslaughter.
Criminal law – murder v manslaughter – requirement to prove malice aforethought; Confessions – voluntariness and corroboration by forensic evidence; Circumstantial evidence; Common intention; Defence of provocation (witchcraft) and alibi.
|
15 May 1995 |
|
Prima facie case requires evidence a reasonable tribunal could convict on; suspicion and hearsay insufficient; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Forgery – Prima facie case test – burden on prosecution – evidence must be such that a reasonable tribunal could convict; hearsay and mere suspicion insufficient. Procedure – Magistrates' Courts Act s.125 – no requirement to hear prosecutor before ruling no case to answer.
|
12 May 1995 |
|
|
12 May 1995 |
|
High Court confirmed a three-year sentence despite a defectively recorded guilty plea because later factual admissions cured it.
Magistrates Courts Act s.167(1)(2) – confirmation of sentences; Plea of guilty – requirement of clear, unequivocal plea; Procedure – record facts constituting offence before conviction (Adan v Republic); Defective plea cured by subsequent factual admission.
|
11 May 1995 |
|
Court stayed execution pending appeal, confirming right to appeal ex parte decree and applying Order 39 r.4 criteria.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution pending appeal to Supreme Court – Right to appeal ex parte decree (s.69(1) CPA) – Inherent jurisdiction (s.101 CPA) – Order 39 r.4 criteria: risk of substantial loss, delay, security.
|
3 May 1995 |