|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2019 |
|
|
Appellate court upholds respondents' ownership; locus-in-quo and corroborative evidence decisive; appeal dismissed.
Land law – ownership and possession – evidentiary weight of locus in quo inspection – credibility of witnesses – striking out overly general grounds of appeal – trespass, eviction and injunction.
|
28 November 2019 |
|
The plaintiffs' alleged local‑government appointments were ultra vires and unenforceable; estoppel could not validate them.
Local Government law; ultra vires acts; appointment of public servants vested in District Service Commission; limits of "aiding and supporting" education; ostensible authority and estoppel cannot validate statutory excess; unenforceability of contracts beyond statutory power; restitution/quasi‑contract remedies distinct from enforcement of illegal contracts.
|
27 November 2019 |
|
Qualified privilege and substantial truth defeat libel claim where plaintiff fails to prove express malice.
Torts — Libel — substantial truth — slight inaccuracies immaterial; Qualified privilege — complaints to authorities on matters of legitimate interest; Burden to prove express malice; Abatement — personal libel actions do not survive death.
|
27 November 2019 |
|
Appeal allowed and retrial ordered due to improper locus in quo procedures and compelled witness statements.
Civil procedure – witness statements in lieu of oral examination; rights of unrepresented litigants; Order 18 r.4 evidence rule; locus in quo procedure and recording; exclusion/preclusion of witnesses; retrial ordered.
|
27 November 2019 |
|
Insurgency-related absence is not abandonment; road and long acquiesced occupation determine boundary; trespass began in 2012.
Land law — Abandonment — Involuntary displacement (insurgency) does not constitute abandonment; intent to abandon required. Adverse possession — continuous, open, hostile and exclusive possession for requisite period; interruptions halt limitation. Boundary — visible features and long acquiesced occupation (road as boundary) may define boundaries absent survey marks.
|
27 November 2019 |
|
An inadvertent non-appearance can justify reinstatement if sufficient cause shown and no undue prejudice to respondents.
Civil procedure – Reinstatement of dismissed suit – Sufficient cause required for setting aside dismissal – Inadvertence or mistake by counsel may suffice – Administration of justice favors merits unless serious prejudice or impossibility of fair trial shown.
|
26 November 2019 |
|
A respondent in possession at attachment can set aside execution where the judgment debtor died and no legal representative was substituted.
Civil procedure — Execution of decree — Substitution of deceased judgment debtor with legal representative before execution; notice to show cause when execution sought after long delay or against legal representative; objector proceedings — inquiry limited to possession at date of attachment, title and res judicata generally not determinative.
|
26 November 2019 |
|
Appellants’ possession and customary title upheld; respondents failed to prove superior title or entitlement to possession.
Land law – customary title – competing historical claims; boundary identification and locus in quo evidence; burden to prove better title; possession vs. title; involuntary abandonment does not extinguish pre-existing ownership.
|
26 November 2019 |
|
Possession alone does not prove customary ownership; prior appropriation and beneficial use determine superior possessory rights.
Land law — Proof of customary ownership — Possession alone insufficient; customary tenure must be proved by customary rules. Doctrine of prior appropriation — "first in time, first in right"; elements: intent, actual/constructive possession, effective beneficial use, priority. Beneficial use and non-use (forfeiture) limit possessory rights. Court may delineate uncontested homestead despite broader possessory dispute.
|
26 November 2019 |
|
Temporary involuntary abandonment during insurgency does not extinguish pre-existing land ownership; respondent entitled to judgment.
* Land law – possession and ownership – temporary involuntary abandonment (insurgency) does not terminate pre-existing ownership rights. * Civil procedure – locus in quo – purpose is to verify evidence, not to create evidence; improper admission of locus witnesses who did not testify in court may be disregarded if outcome remains justified. * Evidence – burden of proof – no "draw" in litigation; tribunal must find for one party when probabilities favour that party. * Appeal – appellate re-evaluation of factual findings where trial procedure irregularities do not occasion miscarriage of justice.
|
26 November 2019 |
|
Appellant failed to prove superior title; respondent's long possession and structures supported dismissal of the claim.
Land law – proof of title and possession; locus in quo sketch map demonstrative only; res judicata is a defence; plaintiff must prove better title.
|
26 November 2019 |
|
Unrecorded locus in quo proceedings that cannot be reconstructed justify a retrial to secure fair adjudication of land ownership.
* Land law – locus in quo inspections – requirement that witnesses demonstrating features be sworn, available for cross-examination, and their statements recorded.* Civil procedure – missing record of proceedings – when reconstruction is impossible and material, retrial may be ordered.* Appellate review – duty to rehear evidence, reassess credibility and interfere where material features were overlooked.* Retrial – exceptional remedy; conditions for ordering retrial outlined and applied.
|
26 November 2019 |
|
Boundary-location dispute resolved by monuments and adverse inference for destruction of boundary markers.
Land law – Boundary disputes; determination of boundary location as question of fact; monuments and rules of comparative dignity (survey lines, natural monuments, artificial monuments, adjoiners, direction, distance, area); admissibility and effect of destroyed or lost boundary markers – spoliation and adverse inference; role of locus in quo inspection in boundary cases.
|
26 November 2019 |
|
Physical evidence at the locus in quo established a consentible boundary; appellant failed to prove trespass and appeal was dismissed.
* Land law – boundary disputes – consentible/consentable boundary – recognition and acquiescence for twelve years or more can create a binding boundary even without written evidence. * Evidence – locus in quo and physical features may outweigh uncorroborated oral testimony in boundary disputes. * Civil procedure – appellate review of factual findings; striking out vague grounds of appeal under Order 43 r (1) & (2) CPR. * Remedies – dismissal of claim for failure to prove title/possession; costs to successful party.
|
26 November 2019 |
|
Prosecution proved aggravated defilement of an infant; juvenile status precluded death and attracted a custodial sentence with remand credit.
* Criminal law – Aggravated defilement – prosecution must prove victim under 14, occurrence of sexual act, and identity of perpetrator.
* Evidence – medical and contemporaneous lay observations corroborating sexual abuse of an infant.
* Juvenile sentencing – death not to be pronounced for offenders under 18; Children Act maximum detention three years; remand credit to be considered.
* Sentence credit – courts to take into account time spent on remand when imposing final sentence.
|
19 November 2019 |
|
The court convicted the respondent for aggravated defilement, accepting voice identification supported by medical and corroborative evidence.
Criminal law – Aggravated defilement – ingredients: age, sexual act, identity; Evidence – voice (ear‑witness) identification – principles, risks and reliability factors; Sentence – starting points, mitigating factors and remand set‑off.
|
13 November 2019 |
|
|
12 November 2019 |
|
|
8 November 2019 |