|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2011 |
|
|
Appeal dismissed: embezzlement and forgery convictions upheld; compensation to donor validated.
* Criminal law – Embezzlement – s.268(b) Penal Code Act – director and sole signatory accessing company funds; special knowledge and proof by silence (s.105 Evidence Act).
* Criminal law – Forgery – ss.342, 347 Penal Code Act – procuring another to forge documents – s.19(2).
* Evidence – Adverse inference from accused’s silence where facts are especially within accused’s knowledge – s.105 Evidence Act.
* Remedies – Compensation to third-party donor (aggrieved party) where donor’s funds misappropriated.
|
21 December 2011 |
|
Slight vaginal penetration proved by medical and circumstantial evidence suffices for defilement; conviction restored, sentence reduced to 15 years.
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Defilement – Proof of penetration – slightest penetration sufficient even if hymen not ruptured; medical and circumstantial evidence may suffice; appellate review of speculative inferences; mitigation of sentence from life to fixed term.
|
6 December 2011 |
|
Slight vaginal penetration evidenced by inflammation and bruising can sustain a defilement conviction despite an intact hymen.
Criminal law – Defilement – Proof of penetration – Slightest penetration sufficient; hymen need not be ruptured – Medical evidence of inflammation/bruising and credible circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction – Absence of victim’s testimony not fatal where other credible evidence exists – Sentencing discretion and mitigation from life to 15 years.
|
6 December 2011 |
|
Wrongful dismissal entitles an employee to damages and accrued entitlements, not speculative retrenchment-style terminal benefits.
Employment law – Wrongful/unlawful dismissal – Measure of damages – Employee cannot claim future contractual remuneration after termination; remedy is damages, payment in lieu of notice and accrued entitlements; retrenchment/voluntary-retirement schemes cannot be used to create post-termination contractual rights.
|
6 December 2011 |
|
Wrongful summary dismissal merits payment in lieu of notice, accrued entitlements and damages; speculative terminal benefits cannot be awarded.
Employment law – Wrongful/unlawful dismissal – Specific performance generally unavailable – Measure of compensation limited to payment in lieu of notice, accrued contractual entitlements and damages; terminal/retirement benefits speculative and not recoverable where contract does not provide – Courts must avoid awards based on conjecture. Procedural note: Employment Act 2006 may affect reinstatement remedies in later cases.
|
6 December 2011 |
| November 2011 |
|
|
|
21 November 2011 |
|
Application to adduce new evidence and vary a final Supreme Court judgment was incompetent and struck out; parties bear their own costs.
Supreme Court practice — admissibility of additional evidence after final disposal of appeal; Rule 30(1) prohibition on taking additional evidence in appeals from Court of Appeal; Rule 2(2) inherent powers — limits and finality of judgments; competency of application to recall or vary final Supreme Court judgment.
|
21 November 2011 |
|
Appeal struck out for lack of required leave to appeal and forgery of the court record; costs to respondent.
Civil procedure – review applications – appealability – where an application for review is refused leave to appeal is required; failure to obtain leave renders an appeal incompetent. Civil procedure – essential steps – Rule 78 (strike out) – non-compliance with mandatory procedural step defeats appeal. Professional conduct – alteration/forgery of court record by counsel – serious misconduct warranting reporting to Law Council.
|
14 November 2011 |
|
Appeal allowed: frustration not pleaded or proven; hirer remained constructively in possession and liable for hire from April 1998 to January 2000.
* Contract law – frustration – party asserting frustration must plead and prove destruction or impossibility; damage alone is insufficient. * Evidence – burden of proof on party alleging frustration; burden shifts if proved. * Hire of chattels / bailment – hirer’s duty to return chattel; constructive possession continues unless lawfully terminated. * Mitigation of loss – claimant not penalised where reasonable mitigation efforts were made.
|
14 November 2011 |
|
Whether frustration was pleaded and proved, and whether respondent remained liable for hire until vehicle’s release.
Contract law — hire of chattel; frustration — pleading and burden of proof; damage versus destruction of subject matter; custody/bailee obligations; entitlement to hire charges, mitigation and interest.
|
14 November 2011 |
|
An amendment elaborating particulars of fraud did not create a new cause of action; lack of communication of a Ministerial decision prevented loss of limitation defence.
Civil procedure — Amendment of pleadings — Whether amendment substitutes new cause of action or elaborates particulars — Order 6 r.19 and Order 2 r.8(1) CPR; Land law — Service/communication of administrative decision under Expropriated Properties Act s.15(1) — Effect on limitation; Joinder of Attorney General — where necessary to determine real questions; Costs — awarded to successful appellant/respondent who obtains leave to amend.
|
14 November 2011 |
|
Whether a plaint’s amendment merely elaborates pleadings or improperly defeats a statutory limitation defence.
Civil procedure – Amendment of pleadings – whether amendment introduces new cause of action or merely elaborates particulars; joinder of Attorney General. Limitation – Expropriated Properties Act s.15(1) appeal period runs from communication; defective service (defunct address) prevents running. Administrative decisions – Ministerial acts under Expropriated Properties Act are administrative and do not oust High Court jurisdiction. Costs – successful party entitled to costs on appeal allowing amendment.
|
14 November 2011 |
| September 2011 |
|
|
|
26 September 2011 |
| August 2011 |
|
|
Applicant cannot claim rent arrears for period when property legally vested in government under expropriation laws.
* Expropriation law – Assets of Departed Asians Act & Expropriated Properties Act – vesting of property in government and management by Custodian Board; * Rent and arrears – statutory regime governs collection and payment during vesting period; * Contract enforceability – agreements contrary to statutory scheme unenforceable; * Consideration and mistake – no valid consideration where party lacked legal capacity; * Equitable interest – possible only in appropriate circumstances, not established here.
|
17 August 2011 |
|
A debt‑collection retainer failing s.51 Advocates Act is unenforceable; advocate cannot bypass statutory rules to claim fees.
* Advocates Act (ss.48,50,51) – debt collection agreements – statutory requirements for enforceability – failure to comply renders agreement unenforceable and may amount to professional misconduct. * Civil procedure – taxation of costs – taxing officer is a registrar/officer of the High Court, not a magistrate. * Appeals – meaning of "appeal" under s.6(2) Judicature Act; appeals from quasi‑judicial/statutory references to High Court are not third appeals requiring certificate. * Contract law – severance of illegal clause – not permitted where statute renders the whole agreement unenforceable; public policy considerations.
|
17 August 2011 |
|
A Rule 52 reference must avoid fresh evidence; where respondent lacks address/assets, court may order security for costs (Shs.200m).
Civil procedure – Reference from single-judge ruling – Rule 52(1)(b) procedure; inadmissibility of additional evidence without leave; Security for costs – Rule 101 and s.404 Companies Act – discretion to require security where appellant/respondent has no known address or assets; Appeal prospects and prima facie assessment; Record preparation – mandatory pagination.
|
2 August 2011 |
| July 2011 |
|
|
Court upheld visual-identification evidence and dismissed appeal; trial judge misdirected on capital-robbery weapon issue but acquittal left undisturbed.
* Criminal law – robbery – visual identification – prior acquaintance, opportunity to observe, torchlight use and flight as corroboration – application of identification guidelines (Nabulele, Nzaro). * Criminal law – capital robbery – meaning of "deadly weapon" under s.273(2) and relevance of medical evidence – judge’s power to summon examining doctor (Trial on Indictment Act s.64(3)). * Appellate review – proper re-evaluation of evidence by Court of Appeal; no interference where findings are sustainable.
|
5 July 2011 |
| June 2011 |
|
|
|
30 June 2011 |
| May 2011 |
|
|
|
31 May 2011 |
|
Appeal dismissed: identification and recent possession evidence upheld, appellant's alibi rejected.
Criminal law – identification evidence and dock identification – recent possession doctrine – alibi – scope of appellate review on second appeal; re‑evaluation of evidence by first appellate court.
|
10 May 2011 |
|
|
10 May 2011 |
| April 2011 |
|
|
|
28 April 2011 |
| February 2011 |
|
|
|
11 February 2011 |
|
|
10 February 2011 |
| January 2011 |
|
|
Applicant failed to show respondent's appeal lacked reasonable prospects despite evidence suggesting inability to pay; application for security dismissed.
Security for costs – Rule 101(1)(b) Supreme Court Rules; Companies Act s.404 – power to require security where limited company likely unable to pay costs; burden on applicant to justify further security; foreign company with no known assets/address; prospect of success on appeal as limiting factor.
|
27 January 2011 |
|
|
27 January 2011 |
|
|
27 January 2011 |
|
Bank's guarantee enforceable despite undated tax-clearance condition; interest reduced to 10% from High Court judgment; appeal dismissed.
Guarantee – interpretation of written guarantee and undated condition precedent – tax clearance certificates – condition relating to assets only – Income Tax Act s.166(2) (capital assets disposed before 1 April 1998) – demand under guarantee (form of demand) – evaluation of evidence – award and timing of interest.
|
25 January 2011 |
|
A bank’s refusal to pay under a guarantee was wrongful where the tax‑clearance condition applied only to the assets and was superfluous.
Guarantee – construction of guarantee and condition precedent; tax‑clearance condition held to relate to assets and rendered inoperative by Income Tax Act s.166(7); demand under a guarantee may be oral where instrument is silent; appellate discretion on interest awards (reduction to 10% p.a.).
|
25 January 2011 |
|
Whether a late bidder had enforceable procurement rights and whether PPDA’s recommendations and temporary contract extension were lawful.
Public procurement — PPDA authority and delegation — sections 90–91 and Regulations 136–140; validity of administrative meetings and recommendations; procurement process suspension and bidder status; regulation 57 — notification and bidder rights; locus standi for judicial review in procurement disputes.
|
25 January 2011 |
|
Murder conviction quashed where malice aforethought not proven; conviction substituted to manslaughter and sentence remitted for mitigation.
Criminal law – homicide – murder vs manslaughter – proof of malice aforethought (Penal Code s.191) must be subjective and proved beyond reasonable doubt; inference of intent from circumstances; role of accused’s post-offence conduct and post-mortem evidence in negating intent.
|
25 January 2011 |
|
Stay of execution refused for lack of leave to appeal and failure to show likelihood of success or irreparable harm.
Civil procedure – stay of execution pending appeal under Rule 6(2)(b) of Supreme Court Rules; requirement to lodge notice of appeal (Rule 72); necessity of leave under Order 44(2) CPR for appeals from dismissal of review applications; need to show likelihood of success and irreparable loss; security for due performance.
|
7 January 2011 |
|
Court granted extension to file appeal record out of time, finding prior striking-out technical and sufficient cause shown.
Civil procedure – extension of time to file record and memorandum of appeal – adequacy of affidavit evidence – effect of advocates’ negligence – res judicata where prior application struck out on technical grounds.
|
7 January 2011 |
