|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2025 |
|
|
Revision under section 83 unavailable where decision is appealable; proper remedy is an appeal, not revision.
Civil Procedure Act s.83 – Revision limited to jurisdictional defects, illegality or material irregularity; Appeal vs revision – decisions requiring review of evidence are appealable; Matrimonial home/children’s interests – trial court discretion to protect children’s housing needs.
|
5 November 2025 |
|
First accused convicted on positive identification; second accused acquitted for lack of evidence of participation.
Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Elements: theft, threat/use of violence, deadly weapon – Identification evidence and alibi – Common intention – Acquittal where participation not proved.
|
5 November 2025 |
|
Respondent’s answer can constitute a cross‑petition proving adultery, desertion and justifying divorce with custody and maintenance orders.
Divorce — grounds: adultery, desertion and psychological cruelty; respondent’s answer treated as cross‑petition; irretrievable breakdown since 2017; decree nisi, custody, visitation and maintenance awarded; guilty party doctrine considered.
|
3 November 2025 |
| October 2025 |
|
|
Court held extension of letters of administration is judicial, granted a conditional 90‑day extension with strict accounting directions.
* Succession Act s.259 – extension of letters of administration – judicial, not administrative, function; formal application required. * Administration of estates – adequacy of inventory, requirement to account for rents and receipts. * Delegation – administrators cannot appoint agents to discharge their duties (delegatus non potest delegare). * Remedies – conditional short extension with strict directions; referral to Administrator‑General on noncompliance.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
High Court cannot revise an interlocutory magistrate’s ruling on limitation; only final determinations are revisable.
Civil procedure – Revision under section 83 CPA – Supervisory powers – Intervention limited to matters finally determined by Magistrate’s Court; interlocutory rulings not revisable. Limitation – Objection to jurisdiction based on limitation should be raised at outset, not as part of defence. High Court should not interfere with ongoing Magistrate’s Court proceedings.
|
23 October 2025 |
|
The accused were convicted of aggravated robbery based on reliable eyewitness identification, violence and use of deadly weapons.
* Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Elements: theft, immediate violence, deadly weapon, participation by accused – proof beyond reasonable doubt.
* Identification – Eye‑witness identification in daylight considered reliable where conditions favourable.
* Evidence – Non‑production of weapons not fatal where attackers removed weapons from scene and witnesses credibly describe their use.
* Defence – Inconsistent denials and afterthoughts do not raise reasonable doubt.
|
22 October 2025 |
|
Prosecution proved robbery and use/threat of violence but not possession of a deadly weapon, so conviction downgraded to robbery.
Criminal law – Robbery vs aggravated robbery – Elements: theft, asportation, use/threat of violence, deadly weapon – Evidential requirement for "deadly weapon" – Credibility of accused's alibi and arrest near scene.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Prosecution proved robbery and violence but not use of a deadly weapon, so conviction is for simple robbery.
Criminal law – Robbery – Elements: theft/asportation; use or threat of violence; deadly weapon – failure to prove deadly weapon means aggravated robbery not established; credibility and presence at scene.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Two neighbours convicted of aggravated defilement based on child’s credible testimony and medical corroboration.
Criminal law – Aggravated defilement – Child-victim evidence and voir dire – Medical corroboration – Identification of accused – Alibi and malice/grudge defence evaluated for reasonable doubt.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Two accused convicted of aggravated defilement after reliable victim identification, medical corroboration, and rejection of alibi and grudge defences.
* Criminal law – Sexual offences – Aggravated defilement – Elements: victim under 14, sexual act, identification of perpetrator. * Evidence – Identification and credibility of child complainant; corroboration by medical and maternal testimony. * Defence – Alibi and alleged grudge insufficient to raise reasonable doubt.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Medical proof of assault was established but identity of the perpetrator was not; accused acquitted for lack of corroboration.
* Criminal law – Aggravated defilement – proof of age and sexual act established by medical evidence; identity of perpetrator must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
* Evidence – Child witness incapacity – where a child cannot testify, corroboration or other evidence is required to prove identity.
* Evidence – Hearsay by parent about child’s statements insufficient without supporting eyewitness or forensic evidence.
* Procedure/forensics – Importance of thorough investigation and DNA/scientific analysis in child sexual assault cases.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Medical proof of sexual assault existed but absence of corroborative eyewitness or forensic evidence led to acquittal.
Criminal law Aggravated defilement; elements victim under 14, sexual act, identity of perpetrator; child witness incapacity and need for corroboration; evidential value of medical findings; importance of forensic/DNA evidence and thorough investigation.
|
10 October 2025 |
|
Prosecution failed to prove aggravated defilement amid contradictions between medical and eyewitness evidence, resulting in acquittal.
Criminal law – Aggravated defilement – Essential ingredients: victim under 14, sexual act, perpetrator’s identity; Evidence – contradictions between medical report and eyewitness testimony; Failure to call examining doctor to reconcile medical and lay evidence; Victim’s evidence dispensed due to shyness; Acquittal for failure to prove case beyond reasonable doubt.
|
7 October 2025 |
| September 2025 |
|
|
Toy pistol can be a deadly weapon, but lack of evidence identifying the accused requires acquittal.
Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Elements: theft, threat/use of violence, deadly weapon, participation – Toy/imitation pistol may constitute a deadly weapon – Failure to prove identity/participation and absence of identification parade or testimony of investigating/local witnesses defeats prosecution – No case to answer; acquittal.
|
4 September 2025 |
|
Applicant granted extension to file appeal out of time due to illness and counsel's omission; appeal to be filed within 15 days.
Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – sufficient cause: serious illness of appellant and counsel’s omission; due diligence and lack of dilatory conduct; arguable grounds of appeal; interests of justice favour hearing on merits.
|
1 September 2025 |
|
Court granted stay of execution pending appeal, conditioned on deposit of half the taxed costs within 30 days.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution pending appeal; requirements under Order 43 r.4 CPR and s.98 CPA; pending/arguable appeal; imminent threat of execution (warrant of arrest); security for due performance (deposit of half taxed costs).
|
1 September 2025 |
| August 2025 |
|
|
No prima facie case of aggravated defilement where only investigating officer’s hearsay evidence was presented.
Criminal law – Aggravated defilement – prima facie case – requirement for direct evidence from victim/eyewitnesses – limits of investigating officer’s hearsay evidence under s.59 Evidence Act – necessity of medical and identity evidence.
|
28 August 2025 |
|
Applicant claiming proprietary interest in disputed land is joined as defendant; amended plaint ordered to avoid multiplicity of suits.
Civil procedure – Joinder of parties (Order 1 CPR) – Amendment of pleadings (Order 6 CPR) – Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent multiplicity of suits – Joinder where applicant claims proprietary interest in disputed land.
|
8 August 2025 |
|
Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed for failure to show sufficient cause and prima facie grounds.
Civil procedure – extension of time – leave to appeal out of time; sufficiency of cause; due diligence and dilatory conduct; ignorance of law not sufficient; requirement of prima facie grounds; exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
|
8 August 2025 |
|
Court allowed entry of deceased plaintiff’s death and permitted amendment to add necessary defendants for complete adjudication.
Civil procedure — substitution on death; Order 24 r.2 — cause of action surviving; joinder and amendment — Order 1 rr.10,13 and Order 6 r.19; inherent power s.98 CPA; necessity and propriety of adding parties for complete adjudication; amendments not to cause unremediable injustice.
|
5 August 2025 |
|
Court ordered DNA tests of the two contesting claimants to resolve disputed paternity for estate administration.
Succession – DNA testing in estate disputes; inherent powers (s.98 CPA; s.33 Judicature Act) to order testing; adult privacy rights not absolute; sibling/kinship tests as alternative to exhumation; tests limited to contesting parties; costs borne by each party.
|
3 August 2025 |
|
Applicant granted extension to file appeal due to counsel’s negligence and arguable grounds; respondent unopposed.
Civil procedure – Extension of time to appeal; sufficient cause and due diligence; negligence of counsel as potential ground; notice of appeal and record as indicia of intent to appeal; discretion under sections 79, 96 and 98 CPA and Order 52 CPR.
|
3 August 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove sufficient cause to set aside dismissal; reinstatement application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure – Order 9 r.17 CPR – setting aside dismissal for non-appearance; requirements for reinstatement: sufficient cause, reasonable time, affidavit, intent to prosecute; abuse of process and dilatory tactics; remedy where dismissal decided on merits (appeal).
|
3 August 2025 |
|
A co‑defendant cannot compel another defendant to enter appearance or be forced to testify; remedies lie with the plaintiff.
Civil procedure – defendant’s non‑appearance – appearance is a personal procedural duty; enforcement lies with plaintiff or court – co‑defendant cannot compel another co‑defendant to enter appearance or be compelled to testify – remedies include proceeding ex parte or default judgment under Order 9 r.6.
|
3 August 2025 |
| July 2025 |
|
|
Court issues urgency certificate for a land dispute to be heard during vacation to prevent destruction of sugar cane crop.
Civil procedure - Certificate of urgency - Inherent powers of the court - Urgent civil applications during court vacation - Prevention of irreparable harm.
|
31 July 2025 |
|
Dismissal of a civil suit was set aside due to applicant's nonappearance caused by their former lawyer's negligence.
Civil Procedure - Rescission of dismissal order - Sufficient cause for nonappearance - Lawyer negligence - Reinstatement of suit
|
31 July 2025 |
|
Court allows single-member meeting to resolve director appointment and share distribution issues due to corporate governance challenges.
Company law – single-member shareholder meeting – appointment of directors – impracticable meeting conditions – court-ordered meeting under Companies Act.
|
24 July 2025 |
|
Solicitations for bids are invitations to treat, not legally binding offers, dismissing claims of fraudulent misrepresentation.
Fraudulent misrepresentation – Procurement law – Invitations to treat – Legal obligations in tender processes.
|
14 July 2025 |
|
|
14 July 2025 |
|
A Chief Magistrate’s order was set aside for relying on non-party oral evidence and proceeding without the lower court’s record.
Civil procedure – Revision – Irregularity in subordinate court proceedings – Necessity for record on revision – Admission of oral evidence from non-parties – Extension of time for service – Natural justice.
|
7 July 2025 |
|
|
7 July 2025 |
| June 2025 |
|
|
A Law Reform Act wrongful-death claim filed after the statute’s limitation is time-barred; prior leave is required to file out of time.
* Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act – statutory limitation for actions arising from death – strict compliance required.
* Limitation Act – section 25 not applicable to extend periods prescribed by other enactments; Limitation Act does not displace special statutory limits.
* Civil procedure – leave to file out of time must be obtained before instituting the main suit; filing first renders suit incompetent/nullity.
* Pleadings – plaint may be rejected under Order 7 r.11(d) where it discloses a barred cause of action.
* Professional negligence – incompetence of counsel does not excuse filing outside statutory limitation; remedy lies in professional negligence proceedings.
|
30 June 2025 |
|
|
27 June 2025 |
|
|
27 June 2025 |
|
|
24 June 2025 |
| May 2025 |
|
|
|
20 May 2025 |
| April 2025 |
|
Civil Procedure—Transfer of Proceedings—Execution proceedings from LCII Court—Delay & alleged bias in Magistrates Court—Power of High Court to transfer cases—Perception of judicial bias—Uncontroverted affidavit evidence—Jurisdictional limits of Magistrates on LCII execution—High Court grants transfer to avoid miscarriage of justice—Costs
|
30 April 2025 |
|
|
25 April 2025 |
|
|
25 April 2025 |
|
|
25 April 2025 |
| September 2024 |
|
|
|
19 September 2024 |
|
|
16 September 2024 |
|
|
5 September 2024 |
| August 2024 |
|
|
|
28 August 2024 |
|
|
12 August 2024 |
| July 2024 |
|
|
|
19 July 2024 |
|
|
19 July 2024 |
|
|
18 July 2024 |
|
|
11 July 2024 |
|
|
11 July 2024 |