|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 1991 |
|
|
Court held the applicant had a valid contract; respondent failed to prove payment; remitted quantification, awarded interest and costs.
* Contract law – formation by conduct – offer and acceptance may be inferred from parties’ conduct and contemporaneous notes.* Evidence – burden/onus of proof in civil cases – party asserting payment must adduce evidence of payment; failure to discharge onus leads to loss of defence.* Documentary and oral evidence – weight to be given to unsigned or partly signed valuation notes and the effect of failure to call or cross‑examine witnesses.* Set‑off/part‑payment – implicit admission by failure to cross‑examine allows consideration of alleged part payments.* Interest – award at claimed contractual/non‑contractual rate where reasonable (30% p.a. from due date). *Costs – trial judge must state reasons when departing from the normal practice of awarding costs to the successful litigant.* Remittal – where quantification of deductions is necessary, matter remitted for further evidence and findings.
|
11 October 1991 |
| September 1991 |
|
Contract Law|Enforcement of contract|Formation and validity of Contract
|
9 September 1991 |
| August 1991 |
|
|
|
30 August 1991 |
| June 1991 |
|
|
Criminal law|Statutory Interpretation
|
20 June 1991 |
|
|
19 June 1991 |
|
Criminal law
|
19 June 1991 |
|
Constitutional Law|Criminal law|Human Rights|Substantive rights|Have his cause heard (fair trial)
|
4 June 1991 |
| May 1991 |
|
Criminal law|Evidence Law|Evaluation of Evidence |
31 May 1991 |
|
|
3 May 1991 |
| April 1991 |
|
|
|
19 April 1991 |
|
Supreme Court addresses cost responsibilities following partial success in appeal, modifying the High Court's costs award.
Civil procedure – costs – appeal against High Court ruling – partial success in appellate outcome – cost determination in absence of clear order in judgment.
|
19 April 1991 |
|
O.37 r.4 powers to discharge interlocutory injunctions are wide but limited; courts must not re‑hear merits or admit fresh evidence.
Civil procedure – interlocutory injunctions – O.37 r.4 discharge of injunction – scope and limits of court’s power – must observe principles for granting injunctions (prima facie case/probability of success, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) – court should not re‑hear merits or admit fresh evidence unavailable at original hearing; property law – challenge to registered title by allegation of fraud under Registration of Titles Act.
|
19 April 1991 |
|
|
18 April 1991 |
|
|
18 April 1991 |
|
An enforceable oral contract was found; the respondent failed to prove payment and the case was remitted to quantify the award.
Contract — existence and terms may be inferred from parties’ conduct where dealings are informal; Burden of proof — once plaintiff establishes contract and performance, defendant must prove payment; Evidence — informal records may be admissible but unchallenged oral admissions may amount to part payment; Remedies — damages, interest (30% from date agreed balance became due), and costs; Procedural — trial judge must state reasons when exercising discretion on costs.
|
18 April 1991 |
|
Extension of time to appeal granted where public importance and surrounding conduct justified setting aside earlier refusal.
— Civil procedure: extension of time to file a notice of appeal — sufficiency of explanation for delay — conduct of State Attorney and effect on delay — public importance of appeal involving substantial foreign-currency judgment — exercise of discretion to grant extension.
|
18 April 1991 |
|
Extension of time to appeal granted where delay linked to unauthorized State Attorney conduct and public importance of large foreign‑currency award.
Extension of time to appeal – delay due to unauthorized conduct of State Attorney – public importance where large foreign‑currency government liability – setting aside refusal to extend time.
|
18 April 1991 |
|
Respondent’s notice of appeal struck out for failing to institute the appeal within prescribed time and failing to justify delay.
Civil procedure — Rules 80 and 81 — time for instituting appeal — requirement to lodge memorandum and record within 60 days; proviso excluding time for obtaining copies of proceedings requires a written request served on the respondent and registry endorsement; failure to take essential steps — notice of appeal struck out; delay attributable to pending High Court applications or alleged missing file does not excuse non-compliance without credible proof; costs awarded for dilatory conduct.
|
18 April 1991 |
|
|
12 April 1991 |
| March 1991 |
|
|
Criminal law|Evidence Law|Evaluation of Evidence
|
19 March 1991 |
|
Second appeal dismissed: factual findings and handling of alleged sketch tampering affirmed; issue raised too late.
* Civil procedure – Second appeal – scope of appellate review: findings of fact vs matters of law.
* Evidence – credibility and weight of witness testimony – court emissary versus interested bystander.
* Evidence/Exhibits – sketch plan alleged tampering – procedural requirement to raise and support allegations by affidavit/evidence at trial.
* Procedural law – late or supplementary grounds of appeal not properly before appellate court without leave.
|
19 March 1991 |
|
|
19 March 1991 |
|
Stay applications to the Supreme Court must include the judgment, prior High Court ruling and full facts or be struck out.
Civil procedure — Stay of execution pending appeal — Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction and discretion; ordinarily High Court should decide stay first — Supreme Court may intervene in exceptional cases; requirements for stay application: must include judgment, notice of appeal, prior High Court ruling and full facts — Omissions and contradictions render application incompetent and liable to be struck out — Conduct of litigant-advocates in court; swearing affidavits on contentious matters.
|
18 March 1991 |
|
|
1 March 1991 |
| February 1991 |
|
|
|
27 February 1991 |
|
|
27 February 1991 |
|
A long‑held municipal temporary licence plus significant improvements can create an equitable proprietary interest requiring compensation; fraud and nullification of municipal grants require high proof, and rent arrears must be recalculated under the Currency Reform Statute.
* Public/local land allocations – Temporary Occupation Licence (T.O.L.) – licence coupled with equity – when licence and long expenditure create equitable proprietary rights enforceable against successors. * Tenancy and occupation – effect of prior tenancy/licence on later allocation by municipal authority. * Fraud – high standard of proof required to vitiate title; mere application for T.O.L./lease not proof of fraudulent usurpation. * Land law and statutory change – effect of Currency Reform Statute 1987 on computation of rent arrears. * Procedure – joinder/participation of municipal authority and remittal for consequential relief.
|
27 February 1991 |
|
Contract Law|Parties to contract|Privity of Contract|Property Law|Land|Leases and tenants|Lease
|
27 February 1991 |
|
Civil Remedies|Damages|Exemplary Damages
|
27 February 1991 |
|
|
27 February 1991 |
Property Law|Land|Leases and tenants|Lease
|
27 February 1991 |
|
Civil Procedure|Actions and applications|Conduct of proceedings
|
27 February 1991 |
|
Appeal dismissed: a lease and certificate issued while an existing leasehold subsisted were invalid; no proven fraud.
Land law – grant of lease and certificate of title – validity where prior leasehold subsists – Commission and District Land Committee duties – availability of land for leasing – Registration of Titles Act – fraud unproven.
|
21 February 1991 |
|
Superior court may grant interim stay of execution despite appeal to a higher court; defective notice not automatically fatal if substantial compliance shown.
• Civil procedure – Stay of execution pending appeal – Jurisdiction of superior courts to grant stay – Generally stay should be sought from court which issued decree but superior court may grant interim relief in exceptional circumstances.
• Civil procedure – Notice of appeal – Requirement to state respondent’s address for service – Non-compliance not necessarily fatal; substantial compliance and affidavit evidence may cure defect.
• Civil procedure – Procedural prerequisites for stay – formal application on affidavit, proof of appeal, arguable case, risk of irreparable harm.
|
6 February 1991 |
