|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| April 2022 |
|
|
Applicant lacked representative authority and courts cannot order LC1/LC2 salaries absent parliamentary appropriation.
Constitutional and civil procedure — Article 50 public interest actions — representative actions — Order 1 Rule 8 compliance and locus standi; Government proceedings — Article 250 and Government Proceedings Act — proper party is the Attorney General; Public finance — Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts — court cannot order payments absent appropriation; Justiciability — separation of powers and non-interference in budgetary functions.
|
29 April 2022 |
|
Court varied prior order, allowing one‑member meeting to remove uncooperative director and appoint interim company secretary.
Company law – variation of court orders – review under s.82 and inherent powers (s.98) – "any other sufficient reason" and material change of circumstances. Corporate governance – director removal by one‑member meeting; appointment of interim company secretary pending share transmission. Evidence – uncontroverted affidavit statements presumed true where not rebutted. Administrative compliance – refusal to provide bio‑data, documents and passwords obstructing licence renewal and company operations.
|
29 April 2022 |
|
Court upheld arrest and prosecution where suspects implicated the applicant and similar stolen property was recovered at his premises.
Constitutional personal liberty — arrest on reasonable suspicion (Art. 23(1)(c)); Malicious prosecution — four requirements (institution by defendant, favourable termination, absence of reasonable and probable cause, malice); Recovery of stolen property and suspects' identification can constitute reasonable and probable cause; Acquittal alone does not establish malicious prosecution.
|
26 April 2022 |
|
Application to reinstate an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution denied for lack of sufficient cause and inordinate delay.
Civil procedure – Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution (O.43 r.14 CPR) – Re-admission requires O.43 r.16 CPR – Applicant must prove sufficient cause and avoid inordinate delay – Negligence of counsel/illness not automatically sufficient.
|
22 April 2022 |
|
Appellate court upheld inclusion of certified polling-station results despite counting disruptions and dismissed appeal; costs awarded to respondents.
Election law – validity of polling-station results – effect of disruptions during counting – admissibility and primacy of certified Declaration of Results forms; Election law – Returning Officer’s omission of polling-station results – non-compliance and substantial effect on election outcome; Appellate procedure – duty of first appellate court to reappraise evidence.
|
22 April 2022 |
|
Appellate court upheld inclusion of certified polling-station results and dismissed appeal, finding omission materially affected the election outcome.
Election law – admissibility and reliability of Declaration of Results forms – effect of disturbances during counting – omission by returning officer as non-compliance materially affecting outcome – duties of first appellate court to reappraise evidence; application of section 135 Local Government Act and cautious application of section 12 Electoral Commission Act.
|
22 April 2022 |
|
Stay of execution denied: notice of appeal and timeliness established, but no substantial loss shown; application dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure — Stay of execution — Order 43 r.4(3) — Requirements: substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, security; Notice of appeal suffices to found stay application; Appealability of judicial review orders; Failure to show substantial loss warrants dismissal.
|
22 April 2022 |
|
Appeal struck out because the memorandum of appeal was unsigned and contained prolix, argumentative grounds.
Civil procedure – Order 43 CPR – memorandum of appeal must be signed by appellant or advocate; unsigned memorandum is incurably defective; grounds of appeal must be concise and non‑argumentative; failure to comply without explanation warrants striking out; appellate court’s duty to re-evaluate evidence does not excuse procedural non‑compliance.
|
22 April 2022 |
|
Challenges to Youth Council election outcomes must be brought by election petition, not by ordinary plaint.
Electoral law — Mode of challenging elections — Election petition required; Procedure — Competence of suit — plaint vs petition; Court powers — Inherent jurisdiction to determine competence sua sponte; National Youth Council elections — Subject to electoral procedural regime.
|
22 April 2022 |
|
Court found government had paid decretal sums; specified interest waiver did not extinguish remaining interest; mandamus refused.
- Interpretation of consent orders: written terms control; extrinsic oral evidence cannot vary an express consent order.- Post-judgment interest: where decree silent on computation, apply restitutio in integrum and compute interest on the aggregate outstanding (principal plus accrued interest) at each payment date.- Enforcement by mandamus against government: requires a subsisting unpaid decretal sum and the existence of a clear right and corresponding duty.
|
21 April 2022 |
|
Court refused interim injunction and dismissed judicial review for failure to exhaust internal university remedies.
Administrative law; interim injunctions — status quo and public interest; exhaustion of internal remedies under university Graduate Handbook; limited judicial interference in academic assessment and examination administration.
|
14 April 2022 |
|
|
14 April 2022 |
|
Filing a defence without an Order 9(3) application submits the defendant to High Court jurisdiction; joinder permits combined claims.
Civil procedure – Jurisdiction – Order 9 rule 3 CPR – filing a defence without application treated as submission to jurisdiction. Civil procedure – Joinder of causes – Order 2 rule 4 CPR – joinder of workers’ compensation and negligence claims permitted. Statutory interpretation – Workers Compensation Act s.14(2) – applies where claim arises under the Act; does not automatically oust High Court jurisdiction. Constitutional law – High Court original jurisdiction (Art.139) – not ousted except by express statutory provision or clear implication. Employment/OSH law – s.93(6) Employment Act and s.110 OSH Act do not restrict civil tort jurisdiction to Magistrates’ Courts in these circumstances.
|
12 April 2022 |
|
Article 50 application dismissed: alleged procurement grievances require judicial review/statutory remedies, not a public interest enforcement action.
Constitutional law – Article 50 – enforcement of fundamental rights – requirement to demonstrate specific infringement and justiciability. Administrative law – performance of statutory functions – appropriate remedy is judicial review or statutory complaint mechanisms, not substituted Article 50 litigation. Locus standi – sufficient interest required for public interest actions. Civil procedure – abuse of process / frivolous and vexatious litigation – court power to dismiss and award costs. National content/procurement – allegations of non‑compliance are regulatory matters amenable to prescribed remedies, not abstract constitutional enforcement.
|
11 April 2022 |
|
Respondent employer vicariously liable for negligent supervision causing applicant’s son’s death; damages awarded.
Tort — Negligence — Employer’s duty of care to casual labourers; failure to supervise and provide safety measures. Vicarious liability — Liability where hired equipment/operator was under employer’s control. Damages — Proof and award of special damages, loss of expectation of life and general damages; assessment principles.
|
11 April 2022 |
|
Bank negligently failed KYC and enabled fraudulent diversion of donor funds; ordered to repay €40,000 plus interest and costs.
Banking law – duty of care/KYC – failure to verify customer identity and documentation leading to liability. Conversion/misappropriation – recovery of donor funds diverted to third-party account. Anti‑Money Laundering obligations – bank's duty to verify beneficiary details and source of funds. Remedies – award of special damages, interest and costs; no award for general/aggravated damages.
|
11 April 2022 |
|
Stay of execution pending appeal denied where applicant failed to show irreparable monetary loss or risk of appeal being nugatory.
Civil procedure – Stay of execution pending appeal; discretionary relief; criteria for stay (appeal pending, non-frivolous, likelihood of success, risk of appeal being rendered nugatory, timeliness, security, balance of hardship); monetary judgments ordinarily not stayed.
|
11 April 2022 |
|
Admissions in an agreed scheduling memorandum are binding; documents admitted by consent cannot be attacked on appeal.
Civil procedure – effect of joint scheduling memorandum – admissions in scheduling memorandum need not be proved. Evidence – admission by consent – failure to object or to challenge in cross-examination precludes later objection on appeal. Statutory interpretation – omission of formality (undated memorandum) not fatal where not misleading (Interpretation Act s.43). Damages – special damages must be pleaded and proved; hospital expenses proved by receipts and witness evidence are recoverable.
|
11 April 2022 |
|
Extension of time granted but judicial review dismissed: respondent lawfully refused disclosure under tax confidentiality.
Access to information – judicial review – enlargement of time due to COVID‑19 lockdown – amenability of public body decisions to judicial review – taxpayer confidentiality under Tax Procedures Code Act s.47 bars disclosure – failure to invoke formal Access to Information Act procedure limits challenge.
|
7 April 2022 |
|
Recusal application dismissed: applicant failed to prove actual, imputed or apparent bias under Recusal Practice Directions.
Recusal — Procedural correctness: Rule 7 (party-instigated) not Rule 6 — Burden to prove actual, imputed or apparent bias — Repeated adverse rulings alone do not prove bias — 'Justice must be seen to be done' requires objective assessment.
|
1 April 2022 |
|
Applicant may not both appeal and seek to set aside inter partes orders; application struck out for abuse.
Civil procedure – Jurisdiction to set aside judgments – Order 9 R12 CPR applies to ex parte judgments only; inter partes discretionary rulings challengeable by appeal; concurrent appeal and application to set aside constitutes abuse of process/forum shopping; estoppel by election (approbation and reprobation).
|
1 April 2022 |