|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2012 |
|
|
Civil Procedure|Costs
|
21 December 2012 |
Contract Law|Breach of Contract|Misrepresentation
|
21 December 2012 |
|
Appeal dismissed: grounds were inadequately framed and new succession claims could not be raised on appeal; ownership found to be part of deceased's estate.
Succession law — letters of administration — ownership of registered land; Appellate procedure — requirement for specific grounds of appeal; Evidence and issues — appellate court will determine only issues properly raised and argued below; Administrator's duties — obligation to allocate shares to deceased's children.
|
20 December 2012 |
|
A valid statutory degazettement rendered the land outside the reserve, preserving the respondent’s unimpeachable title and limiting speculative damages.
* Forest reserves — Statutory Instrument (SI 63/1998) — valid degazettement — Minister’s power under Forests Act to amend declarations when procedures followed.
* Public Trust Doctrine (Art.237) — does not prohibit lawful degazettement effected by proper statutory process.
* Registered title — bona fide purchaser for value without notice — title unimpeachable absent proven fraud (Registration of Titles Act s.59).
* Remedies — unlawful eviction by forestry authority; loss of profits and opportunity must be specifically pleaded and proved; exemplary/aggravated damages require oppressive or malicious conduct.
* Procedure — Court of Appeal coram/dissent: importance of reasons by dissenting judge (practice note).
|
20 December 2012 |
|
Civil Procedure
|
11 December 2012 |
| November 2012 |
|
|
Intergovernmental body's capacity to sue upheld; attachment void for failure to comply with execution/notice requirements.
Intergovernmental organization — capacity to sue and be sued — UNAFRI Statute and hosting agreement confer corporate status; Treaty ratification — burden of proof and applicability of domestic ratification rules; Civil procedure — attachment and execution — requirement of 14 days' notice/publication, return to Registrar and renewal of warrant; Possession vs valid execution — physical possession alone does not validate attachment.
|
21 November 2012 |
|
Civil Procedure|Attachment of Property
|
21 November 2012 |
|
Whether seller’s showing and acquiescence in a purchaser’s building overrides absence of formal survey — appeal dismissed for respondent.
* Contract for sale of land – specific performance – demarcation/survey obligation – whether absence of formal survey defeats purchaser’s claim when seller showed plot and acquiesced in building. * Jenkins v. Green – distinguishable; not applicable where issue is showing of plot and seller’s conduct. * Appellate re-evaluation – drawing inferences of fact justified by proved primary facts. * Third appeal – no matter of law of great public or general importance.
|
12 November 2012 |
| September 2012 |
|
|
|
21 September 2012 |
| July 2012 |
|
Jurisdiction|Labour and Employment Law
|
3 July 2012 |
|
Criminal law
|
3 July 2012 |
| June 2012 |
|
|
|
26 June 2012 |
| May 2012 |
|
|
|
17 May 2012 |
|
Civil Remedies|Stay of Execution
|
16 May 2012 |
|
Evidence Law
|
16 May 2012 |
| April 2012 |
|
|
|
26 April 2012 |
| March 2012 |
|
|
Court allowed late service of a request for proceedings and validated the appeal, exercising discretion where counsel and court delays occurred.
Court exercised discretion under Supreme Court Rules to permit late service of a request for proceedings where court delay and counsel inadvertence otherwise threatened an appellant's right to appeal; Rule 79(2)/(3) and Rule 5 considered; mistakes of counsel and court official delays may justify validation of an otherwise time-barred appeal.
|
6 March 2012 |
| January 2012 |
|
|
Applicant seeking interim stay to prevent land transfers failed to prove interest or imminent execution; application dismissed with costs.
Supreme Court – interim stay of execution – rules 6(2)(b) and 2(2) – applicant must show nexus between appeal and property, produce title/search evidence and real risk of execution – caveat as alternative – failure to discharge burden leads to dismissal.
|
25 January 2012 |
|
Extension of time granted to file appeal due to former counsel’s failure to prosecute; affidavit objection overruled, no costs.
Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules, r.5 – extension of time – sufficient cause shown by negligence of former counsel; Oaths Act – jurat and mode of swearing – preliminary objection based on conjecture overruled; inherent jurisdiction and ends of justice – extension to allow appeal on merits concerning family home; procedure – refusal to supply certified transcript where counsel present.
|
25 January 2012 |
|
Extension of time granted where former counsel’s negligence prevented timely filing; affidavit objection dismissed.
Civil procedure – extension of time under Supreme Court Rules (Rule 5) – counsel’s negligence, mistake or omission as sufficient cause – preliminary objection on affidavit jurat and Oaths Act – inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and serve the ends of justice.
|
25 January 2012 |
|
Application for security for past and further costs dismissed for prematurity, delay, and insufficient evidence of inability to pay.
Civil procedure — Security for costs (Rule 101(3) & (4)) — Discretionary relief; factors: prospects of success, attempts at execution, evidence of inability to pay, delay — Application for past costs premature without execution — Affidavit not struck for inadvertent typographical error.
|
13 January 2012 |
|
Application for security for costs dismissed for delay, prematurity and failure to show inability to pay.
* Civil procedure – Security for costs – Rule 101(3) Supreme Court Rules – discretionary power to order further or past security; burden on applicant to show cause. * Security for past costs not a substitute for execution – must show failure of execution or inability to pay. * Delay in applying for security is a material factor; applications to be sparingly exercised. * Affidavit irregularities – typographical errors corrected by supplementary affidavit do not warrant rejection.
|
13 January 2012 |
