|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2021 |
|
|
Appellant’s conviction for counterfeiting upheld where accomplice evidence, exhibits and conduct proved intent; sentence affirmed.
Trademarks Act s.71 – elements of offence (valid mark; forgery/counterfeit; intent to defraud; participation) – intention inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances – accomplice evidence admissible and may be relied upon where corroborated – conviction and sentence affirmed.
|
27 December 2021 |
|
Applicant's conviction for counterfeiting a trade mark and one-year sentence upheld; accomplice evidence corroborated.
Trademark law – forgery/counterfeiting (s.71 Trademarks Act) – elements: valid mark, counterfeit, intent to defraud, participation; intention inferred from conduct and unchallenged evidence; accomplice evidence admissible where corroborated by independent physical exhibits and conduct; sentencing discretion – economic harm and cross-border impact relevant.
|
27 December 2021 |
|
Bail denied where sureties were inadequate and applicant’s fixed abode lay outside the court’s jurisdiction for a serious offence.
Bail — constitutional right and presumption of innocence; discretion under Trial on Indictments Act ss.14–15; exceptional circumstances not mandatory; adequacy and locality of sureties; fixed abode and risk of absconding; seriousness of offence (aggravated defilement) relevant to bail refusal.
|
20 December 2021 |
|
Bail denied where two sureties were unreliable and the gravity of the alleged offence outweighed release.
Bail pending trial; presumption of innocence; Trial on Indictments Act s14–s15; proof of residence by LC1 introductory letter; substantiality and credibility of sureties; seriousness of offence (kidnap with intent to murder).
|
17 December 2021 |
|
A promise of future action (logbook transfer) is not a false pretence; loan dispute was civil, conviction quashed.
Criminal law – Obtaining money by false pretence – elements of offence – statement of future intention does not amount to false pretence; loan/mortgage disputes are civil matters and should not be criminalized; prosecution must prove all ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.
|
17 December 2021 |
|
A accused charged with aggravated defilement on long remand granted bail where fixed abode and substantial sureties dispel absconding risk.
Bail – constitutional right to personal liberty and presumption of innocence – Trial on Indictments Act s.14/15 – exceptional circumstances not mandatory – fixed abode and sound sureties as safeguards against abscondment – aggravated defilement does not automatically preclude bail.
|
17 December 2021 |
|
Court refused bail for an accused on murder and aggravated robbery charges, prioritising public safety and flight risk over liberty.
* Criminal procedure – Bail pending trial – Discretion under Article 28(3) Constitution and section 14(1) Trial on Indictments Act – seriousness of offence and flight risk as grounds for refusal.
* Bail conditions – fixed place of abode and sureties – residence of sureties within jurisdiction sufficient; different locality not fatal.
* Exceptional circumstances – not always mandatory to grant bail in capital cases; court exercises discretion having regard to public safety and likelihood of abscondment.
|
17 December 2021 |
|
Unrebutted email service and failure to notify court bar setting aside a ruling for alleged non‑service.
Criminal procedure — Service of written submissions by email — Proof of service (Annexure A) — Denial of email ownership without cogent contrary evidence — Duty to notify court of defective service — Waiver by non‑attendance at ruling — Discretionary remedies under Judicature Act and Article 28 — Dismissal for abuse/delay.
|
14 December 2021 |
|
An omnibus stay/bail application alleging torture was partly struck out and the stay dismissed for insufficient, hearsay‑based evidence.
Criminal procedure – stay of prosecution – allegations of torture and excessive pre‑trial detention – interlocutory affidavit evidence insufficient; omnibus applications improper; serious human‑rights complaints to be determined at trial under Human Rights Enforcement Act.
|
3 December 2021 |
|
Failure to provide state counsel and ensure the applicant understood the charges invalidated the trial, necessitating a retrial.
Criminal procedure – Right to legal representation under Art 28(3)(e) – State duty to provide counsel where offence attracts life imprisonment irrespective of request; Plea-taking – requirement that accused understands charges and interpreter competence be established; Defective trial – plea equivocal and miscarriage of justice necessitating retrial.
|
2 December 2021 |
|
Proceeding without assigned counsel and without ensuring understanding of charges rendered the plea unsafe; retrial ordered.
* Constitutional criminal procedure – right to state-funded legal representation where offence carries life imprisonment – mandatory duty to inform and assign counsel irrespective of accused’s request. * Plea-taking – duty to ensure accused understands charges and to vet interpreter competence; conviction on equivocal plea is unsafe. * Remedy – illegal or defective trial warrants retrial.
|
2 December 2021 |
|
Failure to provide mandatory state counsel and ensure comprehension of charges rendered the trial illegal; retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – right to State-funded counsel under Art 28(3)(e) where offence attracts life imprisonment; duty to appoint counsel irrespective of request; plea-taking and interpreter competence – court must ensure accused understands charges (Adan v Republic); defective trial → retrial ordered.
|
1 December 2021 |
| November 2021 |
|
|
|
17 November 2021 |
|
Bail refused where trial had commenced, applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances and sureties were inadequate given his office.
* Criminal procedure – Bail – Discretion under section 14(1) Trial on Indictments Act – Exceptional circumstances not mandatory but relevant.
* Bail – Factors – commencement of trial and testimony of witnesses, risk of over-detention.
* Bail – Sureties – adequacy depends on capacity to control accused; status of sureties relative to accused relevant.
* Constitutional law – Right to personal liberty and presumption of innocence balanced against public interest in prosecution of serious offences (murder).
|
11 November 2021 |
|
Appellants’ convictions for nighttime arson upheld: identification reliable, contradictions minor, sentence not excessive.
Criminal law – Arson – proof of building destroyed by fire and willful participation; Identification – eyewitness identification at night, factors (familiarity, light, proximity, duration); Contradictions – minor inconsistencies not necessarily fatal; Alibi – prosecution's burden to disprove; Sentence – appellate interference only if illegal, wrong principle, or manifestly excessive.
|
5 November 2021 |
| October 2021 |
|
|
|
8 October 2021 |
|
Appeal dismissed because respondents were never served and proceedings could not fairly continue in their absence.
Criminal procedure – Service of process on respondents in an appeal – Repeated adjournments for service – Failure to serve respondents and unserved submissions – Dismissal of appeal in interest of justice.
|
7 October 2021 |
|
Appeal dismissed because respondents were never traced or served, preventing fair continuation of proceedings.
Criminal appeal; service of appeal documents; failure to trace or serve respondents; repeated adjournments; dismissal for inability to proceed fairly.
|
7 October 2021 |
|
Pending appeal dismissed unless appellant traces and effects service on the absent respondent so matter can be heard.
Criminal appeal procedure – service and attendance of respondent – interest of justice – appellant required to trace and effect service before hearing; failure to do so leads to dismissal.
|
7 October 2021 |
|
Appeal dismissed unless appellant traces and serves untraceable respondent; hearing requires all parties present.
Criminal procedure – Service of appeal documents – Duty to serve/respondent untraceable – Dormancy of appeal – Interest of justice – Dismissal for failure to effect service.
|
7 October 2021 |
|
High Court cannot use revision to challenge interlocutory bail orders; civil and criminal proceedings may proceed concurrently.
* Criminal procedure – Revision – Sections 48 and 50(5) CPCA – Revision limited to final orders; interlocutory bail rulings not revisable. * Bail – cancellation discretionary; absence of record showing bail conditional on production of title deed. * Evidence – claim of right is a defence to be proved at trial. * Civil vs criminal proceedings – may proceed concurrently; pending civil suit does not automatically stay criminal prosecution.
|
4 October 2021 |
|
Revision cannot challenge interlocutory bail orders; criminal and civil proceedings may proceed concurrently.
Criminal procedure – Revision under ss.48 and 50(5) CPCA limited to final orders – Interlocutory bail orders not revisable; concurrent civil and criminal proceedings permissible; claim of right is a trial defence.
|
4 October 2021 |
|
Revision cannot be used to challenge interlocutory magistrates’ orders; civil and criminal proceedings may proceed concurrently.
Criminal procedure — Revision — Revisional jurisdiction under ss.48 and 50(5) CPCA limited to final orders; interlocutory orders (e.g., bail, production of documents) are not revisable; concurrent civil and criminal proceedings permissible; claim of right is a defence to be proven at trial.
|
4 October 2021 |
| September 2021 |
|
|
Appellate court reduced an excessive cumulative six-year sentence for multiple thefts to shorter consecutive terms.
Criminal law – Sentencing – appellate interference with discretionary sentence – manifestly excessive or miscarriage of justice; Consecutive sentences – Magistrates Courts Act s.192(1); aggregate treatment on appeal – Trial on Indictments Act s.2(3); mitigating factors – guilty plea, first offender status, value of property.
|
23 September 2021 |
|
Appellate court reduced excessive cumulative consecutive sentence, confirming one term and reducing two others while keeping them consecutive.
* Criminal law – Sentencing – Discretion of trial court – Appellate interference only where sentence is unlawful, manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
* Statutory default – Consecutive sentences – Section 192(1) Magistrates Courts Act; aggregation of consecutive sentences for appeal.
* Mitigation – Guilty plea and first offender status as factors in reducing sentence.
* Sentence revision – Confirmation and reduction of individual terms while preserving consecutiveness.
|
23 September 2021 |
|
Appellate court reduced cumulative six-year sentence for three theft convictions as manifestly excessive, revising two terms to 1.5 years.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Appellate interference with sentencing discretion – Consecutive sentences – Treatment of aggregate sentence on appeal – Factors: guilty plea, first offender status, value of stolen property.
|
23 September 2021 |
|
Appellate court reduced cumulative consecutive sentences as excessive, confirming one term and reducing two others while keeping them consecutive.
* Criminal law – Sentencing – Consecutive sentences – Default rule that sentences run consecutively (Magistrates Courts Act s192(1)). * Appeal – Interference with sentencing discretion – Only where sentence is manifestly excessive/lenient, wrong in principle, or relevant factors ignored (Kiwalabye principle). * Trial on Indictments Act s2(3) – Aggregation of consecutive sentences for appeal purposes. * Mitigation – weight of guilty plea and first‑offender status in sentencing.
|
23 September 2021 |
|
Medical evidence of penetration without corroboration linking the juvenile to the acts failed to establish a prima facie case.
* Criminal law – Aggravated defilement – elements: victim under 14, sexual act, participation by accused.
* Procedure – Trial on Indictments Act s.73(1) – test for prima facie case at close of prosecution.
* Evidence – unsworn child testimony requires corroboration to establish accused’s participation.
* Forensic evidence of penetration, without corroborative linkage to accused, insufficient to sustain conviction.
|
21 September 2021 |
|
Insufficient corroboration of unsworn child testimony led to acquittal for lack of prima facie case.
Criminal law – Aggravated defilement; s.73 Trial on Indictments Act – prima facie test; unsworn child evidence and requirement of corroboration; medical evidence proves sexual act but not identity/participation; standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
21 September 2021 |
|
A child remanded beyond the Children Act’s three-month limit must be considered for bail with appropriate safeguards.
Children Act – s90 and s91(5) – mandatory maximum remand of three months for a child charged with an offence punishable by death; constitutional right to apply for bail; presumption in favour of release of children; safeguards on release – court bond sureties, Registrar’s examination, probation and social welfare inquiry.
|
19 September 2021 |
|
A child remanded beyond the Children Act’s three-month limit for a death-eligible offence must be released on bail with safeguards.
- Children Act – remand of child charged with death-eligible offence – mandatory maximum remand of three months per s.91(5);
- Bail – constitutional right to apply for bail (Art.23(6)(a)) and paramountcy of avoiding institutional detention for children;
- Conditions for juvenile bail – own recognisance, sureties on court bond (not cash), registrar examination, probation and social welfare inquiry and report.
|
19 September 2021 |
|
A child charged with a capital offence remanded beyond the statutory three-month limit must be considered for bail with safeguards.
Children Act – Bail and remand limits for children charged with capital offences; mandatory three-month remand ceiling; bail on recognisance; safeguards of sureties, Registrar examination and Probation/Social Welfare inquiry.
|
19 September 2021 |
|
Remand exceeding 120 days is unreasonable detention; High Court may order release on appropriate non-cash bail and bonded sureties.
Human Rights (Enforcement) Act s.15 — unreasonable detention — remand exceeding 120 days; Constitution art.23(6)(b) — mandatory bail with reasonable conditions; Magistrates Courts Act s.75(4)(a)/s.76 — High Court power to vary bail; bail conditions — cash versus bonded sureties; right to fair trial and timely prosecution.
|
16 September 2021 |
|
Five accused convicted of aggravated robbery, arson, malicious damage and trespass; attempted murder and indecent assault not proved.
* Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – elements: theft, violence/threat, deadly weapon, participation – proof beyond reasonable doubt by eyewitnesses and police photographs. * Criminal law – Arson and malicious damage – photographic and eyewitness evidence admissible and sufficient absent valuation. * Property offences – Criminal trespass – actual possession and intent to intimidate/commit offences. * Criminal law – Doctrine of common intention (s.20 PCA) – liability where a common unlawful purpose exists or develops. * Evidence – Alibi must be raised early; afterthought alibi may be rejected. * Attempted murder/indecent assault – specific perpetrator and requisite intent must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
|
15 September 2021 |
| August 2021 |
|
|
An interlocutory deferral of preliminary objections is not appealable to the High Court; revision, not appeal, is the proper remedy.
* Criminal procedure – Appealability – Interlocutory/discretionary orders deferring rulings on preliminary points are not appealable to the High Court under s.216. * Remedy – Revision, not appeal, is the appropriate procedure to challenge irregular or illegal interlocutory orders. * High Court jurisdiction – Competence to hear appeals limited to final decisions.
|
16 August 2021 |
|
Daylight mob-lynching: identification and common intention established five accused guilty of murder, each sentenced to life imprisonment.
Criminal law – Murder – Elements: death, unlawful act, malice aforethought; Identification evidence – reliability in daylight, witness familiarity; Common intention – Section 20 P.C.A. – liability of participants in mob lynching; Alibi – afterthought doctrine; Sentence – life imprisonment in aggravated mob-lynching.
|
5 August 2021 |
|
Court convicted two accused of murder on confessions and circumstantial evidence, but acquitted them of aggravated robbery.
* Criminal law – Murder – Elements: death, unlawful killing, malice aforethought, participation. * Evidence – Charge and caution statements/confessions – admissibility, voluntariness and corroboration. * Criminal law – Common intention (s.20 P.C.A.) – inference from conduct and circumstantial evidence. * Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – necessity to prove theft and ownership as essential elements.
|
5 August 2021 |
|
High Court cannot revise interlocutory magistrate rulings; civil suits do not stay related criminal proceedings.
* Criminal procedure – Revision – Sections 48 and 50 CPCA – Revisional jurisdiction limited to final orders; interlocutory rulings not revisable.
* Prosecutorial discretion – Article 120 Constitution – DPP’s mandate to prefer and amend charges, and control investigations.
* Criminal & civil proceedings – Concurrent proceedings – Filing civil suit does not automatically stay criminal trial.
|
4 August 2021 |
|
High Court dismissed revision seeking stay of criminal trial pending civil suits, holding interlocutory rulings non-revisable.
Revision — interlocutory rulings not revisable; Prosecutorial discretion under Article 120 — courts do not pre-emptively interfere with preferring or amending charges; Civil and criminal proceedings may proceed concurrently; Sections 17, 48 and 50 — limits of High Court supervisory/revisional powers.
|
4 August 2021 |
|
High Court cannot revise interlocutory magistrate rulings; civil suits do not automatically stay related criminal prosecutions.
Criminal procedure – Revision – Revisional jurisdiction limited to final orders; interlocutory magistrates’ rulings are not revisable. Prosecutorial powers – Article 120 DPP may institute and amend charges; absence of charge-and-caution statements or disclosed investigation report not a ground to stay prosecution. Civil and criminal proceedings – Distinct processes; filing civil suit does not automatically stay related criminal trial.
|
4 August 2021 |
|
Interlocutory magistrate rulings are not revisable; criminal and civil proceedings may proceed concurrently.
* Criminal procedure – Revision – Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 48 and 50 CPCA – interlocutory orders not revisable.
* Constitutional and prosecutorial powers – Article 120 – DPP’s discretion to prefer and amend charges; prosecutorial conduct ordinarily not curtailed pre-trial.
* Civil and criminal proceedings – concurrent proceedings permissible; filing civil suit does not automatically stay criminal trial.
* Procedural complaints (lack of charge/caution statements, non‑disclosure of investigation report) to be addressed during trial rather than by pre‑trial revision.
|
4 August 2021 |
|
Interlocutory rulings (e.g., charge-sheet amendment) are not appealable under the Magistrates Courts Act; appeal dismissed.
* Criminal procedure – interlocutory orders – amendment of charge sheet – no statutory right of appeal under section 204 of the Magistrates Courts Act; appeals lie only against conviction or acquittal.
|
4 August 2021 |
|
Improper plea-taking (failure to explain mens rea) led to quashing murder conviction and substitution with manslaughter and reduced sentence.
Criminal procedure – plea of guilty – requirement to explain elements of offence (mens rea) before accepting plea; defective indictment particulars – manslaughter versus murder; miscarriage of justice and retrial; sentencing discretion and deduction of remand time.
|
4 August 2021 |
| June 2021 |
|
|
Interlocutory 'no case' rulings are not revisable; civil and criminal proceedings may proceed concurrently.
Criminal procedure – Revision – Interlocutory orders (no‑case-to‑answer) are not revisable; revision confined to final orders. Criminal v civil proceedings – Distinct remedies; criminal and civil cases may proceed concurrently; pending civil suit does not automatically stay criminal prosecution. Accused’s claim of right must be raised and proved in defence or civil suit; DPP retains prerogative to institute or discontinue prosecutions.
|
23 June 2021 |
|
The applicant cannot seek revision of an interlocutory 'no case to answer' ruling; civil and criminal matters may proceed concurrently.
Criminal procedure — Revision — Revision confined to final orders; interlocutory 'no case to answer' rulings not revisable. Civil v criminal — Concurrent proceedings allowed; pending civil suit not an automatic stay of criminal prosecution. Defence of claim of right — Ownership disputes to be raised and proved at trial. Prosecutorial discretion — DPP retains prerogative to prefer and maintain criminal charges.
|
23 June 2021 |
|
Appellate court confirmed nuisance and unlawful boarding-extension convictions based on unchallenged inspection reports and photographs.
Public Health Act (s57) – common nuisance – insanitary/dilapidated premises; Education Act (s38, s40(c)) – unlawful administration of school extension/boarding without permission; evidentiary weight of local authority inspection reports and photographs where authenticity not specifically challenged; appellate re-evaluation of trial evidence and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
17 June 2021 |
|
Appellate court confirmed convictions for nuisance and unlawful boarding extension based on inspection reports and photographs.
* Public Health Act – nuisance – premises so dirty, dilapidated or overcrowded as to be injurious to health – inspection reports and photographs as evidence.
* Education Act 2008 – administering or permitting an unapproved boarding extension – requirement to seek classification/approval.
* Criminal appellate review – duty to re-evaluate evidence, allowance for not having seen/heard witnesses.
* Locus visit – relevance and effect where trial magistrate visited and appellant admitted same.
* Evidentiary principle – failure to specifically challenge inspection reports/photographs treated as acceptance.
|
17 June 2021 |
|
Appeal dismissed; convictions for public health nuisance and unapproved boarding extension confirmed.
Public Health Act (s.57) – what constitutes a nuisance; Education Act (s.40(c)) – administering an extension/boarding section without permission; admissibility and probative value of inspection reports and photographic exhibits; appellate re-evaluation of trial evidence and effect of failure to challenge documentary evidence.
|
17 June 2021 |
|
Appellate court confirmed convictions for public-health nuisance and unlicensed boarding based on inspection reports and photographs.
Criminal law – nuisance under Public Health Act (s.57) – sufficiency of inspection reports and photographic evidence; Education Act 2008 (s.40(c)) – administration of unlicensed boarding extension; appellate review – locus visit and re-evaluation of evidence.
|
17 June 2021 |
|
Appellate court affirmed theft conviction: property, conversion and participation proven; confession admissible; contradictions immaterial.
* Criminal law – Theft – elements: property, fraudulent conversion, participation – proof beyond reasonable doubt.
* Evidence – Admission of charge and caution statement – requirement to exclude for violence, threat, inducement or promise; mere name‑order objection insufficient.
* Evidence – Failure to cross‑examine on material facts permits inference of acceptance; photographs admissible to prove stock existence.
* Evidence – Inconsistencies and delay that are minor do not necessarily vitiate otherwise corroborated prosecution case.
|
14 June 2021 |