|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| April 1996 |
|
|
Civil Procedure
|
26 April 1996 |
|
Adjournment refused where plaintiff's work commitments and absent witnesses did not amount to sufficient cause; suit dismissed under O.9 r.19.
Civil procedure — Adjournment — Discretion under Order 15 r.1 — Applicant must show sufficient cause. Civil procedure — Non-appearance of parties/witnesses — Absence despite notification not sufficient without explanation. Civil procedure — Dismissal for non-prosecution — Order 9 r.19 invoked; costs awarded to defendants.
|
26 April 1996 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove fraudulent transfer; registered proprietor was a bona fide purchaser and title was protected, suit dismissed with costs.
Land law – allegation of fraudulent transfer of registered land – strict proof of actual fraud required to impeach a registered title under the Registration of Titles Act. Registered titles – protection of bona fide purchaser for value without notice (Registration of Titles Act ss. 145, 184, 189). Burden of proof – higher standard where fraud is alleged; circumstantial evidence insufficient without Land Office or direct proof. Procedure – non-service of one defendant does not prevent proceeding against another properly before court.
|
22 April 1996 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove fraudulent transfer; the purchaser was held a bona fide purchaser whose registered title is protected.
Land law — Registration of Titles Act — Conclusive effect of registered certificate of title and limited exceptions for fraud; burden of strict proof of fraud. Property — bona fide purchaser for value without notice — protection of registered title. Civil procedure — non-service of co-defendant; proceeding against one defendant only.
|
22 April 1996 |
|
|
22 April 1996 |
|
|
22 April 1996 |
|
Prosecution failed to prove essential elements of defilement; no prima facie case, accused acquitted and released.
Criminal law – Defilement (s.123(1) Penal Code) – Prima facie case – Essential ingredients (age and sexual intercourse) must be proved before requiring accused to defend – Failure to produce key witnesses may amount to closure of prosecution case.
|
22 April 1996 |
|
Court upheld originating‑summons procedure and timeliness but dismissed foreclosure for defective (unsigned) demand evidence.
Mortgage law – Foreclosure and sale – Originating summons under Order 34 (rule 7, rule 3A) and section 2 of Mortgage Decree 1974 – Procedural correctness; Limitation Act – effect of governmental appropriation on accrual and computation of limitation; Evidence – requirement for signed demand/annexures to prove sums due; Caveat removal – legality where property was under government control.
|
19 April 1996 |
|
Prosecution failed to prove unlawfulness and causation of the child's death beyond reasonable doubt; accused acquitted.
Criminal law – Murder – elements of murder (death, unlawfulness, malice aforethought, identification) – burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt – unreliability/incompleteness of post-mortem report – inconsistent witness statements undermining causation and unlawfulness.
|
17 April 1996 |
|
Conviction for defilement upheld where medical findings, eyewitness observations and accused’s admission corroborated the complainant.
Criminal law — Defilement — Elements: age of complainant, occurrence of sexual intercourse, identity of assailant — burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Sexual offences — Caution when acting on complainant’s testimony — corroboration by medical evidence and admissions. Evidence — Medical evidence (ruptured hymen, bruising), witness observation and admissions as corroboration of complainant’s account. Sentencing — Seriousness of offence, breach of trust in school setting, first offender and remand period considered.
|
17 April 1996 |
|
Uncorroborated nighttime identification and insufficient evidence of participation led to acquittals for murder and aggravated robbery.
Criminal law – Murder – elements: death, unlawfulness, malice aforethought, participation. Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – theft accompanied by violence and death in course of offence. Evidence – Identification by single witness at night requires caution and corroboration. Criminal procedure – No case to answer where prosecution evidence is insufficient to make out participation.
|
17 April 1996 |
|
Originating summons appropriate for foreclosure but suit dismissed because plaintiff failed to prove a valid demand for sums due.
Mortgage foreclosure — originating summons under Order 34 — procedural adequacy; Limitation Act and interruption by Government appropriation; requirement of formal demand and admissible documentary proof; caveat removal invalid while property under Government/Custodian control.
|
15 April 1996 |
|
Court ordered a company plaintiff to furnish Shs.200,000,000 security for costs within 30 days or face strike out.
Security for costs — Order 21 r.1 Civil Procedure Rules; Companies Act — court may require company plaintiff to give security where credible evidence shows likely inability to pay defendants’ costs; quantum of security — court’s assessment of reasonableness; failure to furnish security — strike out of proceedings.
|
4 April 1996 |
|
Whether a repossession certificate issued after lease re‑entry can defeat a trespass claim and confer title.
Expropriated Properties Act – certificate of repossession – effect where lease terminated by re‑entry; Leasehold – re‑entry for non‑payment of ground rent – termination and noting on register; Trespass to land – unlawful occupation after lease determination; Remedies – injunction, eviction, compensatory damages, interest and costs.
|
1 April 1996 |
|
Civil Procedure|Jurisdiction
|
1 April 1996 |
|
The accused was acquitted of rape due to evidence suggesting consensual intercourse.
Criminal Law – Rape – Elements of lack of consent – Burden of proof in rape cases.
|
1 April 1996 |
|
Accusations of aggravated robbery dismissed due to lack of evidence and identification inconsistencies.
Criminal law – aggravated robbery – requirements for proof – identification of accused – evidentiary inconsistencies and procedural irregularities.
|
1 April 1996 |