|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2019 |
|
|
Election nullification reversed where allegations of bribery, theft and violence were unproven and not shown to affect the voting majority.
Electoral law — election petitions — standard of proof (fairly high degree of convincing clarity) — s.97(2)(a) Electoral Process Act — corrupt and illegal practices by candidate or with candidate's knowledge/agent — requirement to prove effect on majority of voters; procedural rules — filing of answer under Local Government Elections Tribunals Rules; admissibility and corroboration of hearsay, partisan witnesses and confessions.
|
11 December 2019 |
|
The JSC may discipline judicial officers either on JCC recommendation or on its own initiation under Article 241(c); petition dismissed.
Constitutional law – judicial discipline – roles of JCC and JSC – Article 241(c) permits JSC to initiate investigations and receive complaints; Judicial Service Commission Regulations (S.I. No.8/1998) valid as consistent with Constitution; Disciplinary Code for Public Service may apply to subordinate magistrates for ordinary offences; Public Finance Management Act contraventions are for High Court jurisdiction
|
9 December 2019 |
|
Placing a selected candidate on the chiefs' payroll is administrative, not constitutional recognition, so no breach of Articles 165 and 167.
Constitutional law — Chieftaincy succession — Article 165 (recognition of chiefs) — Article 167 (chiefs' privileges) — Payment of subsidies and placement on payroll not equivalent to constitutional recognition — Administrative acts versus recognition — Role of House of Chiefs and Chiefs Act.
|
4 December 2019 |
| November 2019 |
|
|
Whether the Constitutional Court may judicially review a proposed constitutional amendment bill for compliance with national values and principles.
Constitutional law — Jurisdiction of Constitutional Court — Whether Court may review or quash a proposed bill before enactment; application of national values and principles (Arts. 8, 9, 61); limits of Article 128 jurisdiction.
|
29 November 2019 |
|
Sections 3–7 of the Chiefs Act conflict with Article 165 and are void; chieftaincy recognition must follow customary processes.
Constitutional law – supremacy of the Constitution – Article 165 guarantees chieftaincy per culture and forbids legislation conferring recognition or withdrawal powers – Sections 3–7 Chiefs Act inconsistent and void.
|
27 November 2019 |
|
Order VIII rule 1(1) requires physical presence for oral evidence; video-link testimony disallowed absent agreement or protocol.
Constitutional procedure — Evidence — Order VIII r.1(1): oral evidence in open court implies physical presence unless parties agree; alternatives (affidavits, dispensation, interrogatories) available; video‑link testimony not permitted absent procedural protocol or parties’ agreement.
|
25 November 2019 |
| October 2019 |
|
|
Summons for judgment on admission dismissed because respondent gave no clear, unequivocal admission; each party bears own costs.
Civil procedure — Admission — Entry of judgment on admission requires clear, unequivocal admissions; Order 27 rule 3 White Book; Constitutional Court single-judge jurisdiction limits.
|
22 October 2019 |
| September 2019 |
|
|
A party must obtain leave before seeking to reopen a Constitutional Court final judgment; failure renders the application incompetent.
Constitutional Court procedure – Reopening final judgments – Inherent jurisdiction to control procedure – Requirement of leave/permission to reopen – Order I rules and 1999 English practice cutoff – Taylor v Lawrence considered but not imported without regard to statutory cutoff.
|
12 September 2019 |
| May 2019 |
|
|
The Public Protector is an investigatory constitutional office, not a court, and is subject to High Court judicial review.
Constitutional interpretation – Public Protector’s constitutional status and powers – Whether Public Protector is a court – Scope and limits of Article 244(5) – Article 245 limitations – Judicial review under Article 267(4).
|
28 May 2019 |
|
Placing a purported chief on payroll is an administrative act, not constitutional "recognition", and customary selection disputes are non-constitutional.
Chieftaincy — Article 165 — meaning of "recognition"; Administrative acts (payroll/subsidy) distinguished from formal recognition; Jurisdiction — constitutional court does not decide non-constitutional customary selection disputes; Chiefs Act s.3 (pre-2016) and effect of 2016 constitutional amendment; Limits of judicial intervention in traditional succession disputes.
|
21 May 2019 |
|
The new Local Government Act prescribes two-and-a-half-year deputy terms and allows incumbents to seek re-election.
Constitutional interpretation — Article 154(1) ‘as prescribed’ — effect of repeal and replacement of earlier Local Government Act — Local Government Act No. 2 of 2019 prescribes two-and-a-half-year terms for deputy mayors and deputy council chairpersons and allows one further re-election — incumbents preserved and eligible under section 82(3).
|
17 May 2019 |
| March 2019 |
|
|
A materially defective record of appeal justifies dismissal; Article 118(2)(e) does not override mandatory procedural rules.
Constitutional law — Article 118(2)(e) — procedural technicalities — record of appeal — Supreme Court Rules (rules 10, 58, 68) — dismissal for defective record — jurisdiction to enforce Part III rights — right to fair hearing (Article 18(9)).
|
27 March 2019 |
|
Suspending a magistrate for a judicial decision violated judicial independence; suspension declared unlawful and damages awarded.
Constitutional law — Judicial independence — Article 122 prohibition on interference with judicial functions — Suspension of magistrate for judicial decision unlawful; Administrative law — absence of statutory power in Chief Registrar to suspend judicial officers; Disciplinary procedure — distinction between unlawful suspension and separate misconduct proceedings before Judicial Service Commission; Remedies — expungement, back pay, general and exemplary damages, interest and costs.
|
14 March 2019 |
|
Suspension of a magistrate for referring a constitutional question was unlawful interference with judicial independence; suspension expunged and damages awarded.
Constitutional law – Judicial independence – Article 122(1)–(2) – unlawful suspension of magistrate for exercising judicial function; administrative law – Chief Registrar’s lack of power to suspend; discipline of judicial officers – separation of suspension and subsequent misconduct charge.
|
14 March 2019 |
|
Petitioner failed to prove widespread, attributable electoral misconduct required to void the election.
Electoral law — section 97(2)(a) Electoral Process Act — standard of proof in election petitions — candidate liability only for acts of named election/polling agents or acts with candidate's knowledge/consent — requirement that misconduct be widespread enough to affect majority of voters — need for corroborative documentary evidence (police/FRA records) for serious allegations.
|
7 March 2019 |
| February 2019 |
|
|
A petitioner may discontinue a constitutional petition before judgment; court granted discontinuance and ordered each party to bear own costs.
Constitutional Court Rules – Order X Rule 3 – Discontinuance before judgment – Court’s discretionary power – Reasons not required – Speculative future prejudice insufficient to refuse discontinuance – Costs in discretion (each party to bear own costs).
|
14 February 2019 |
| January 2019 |
|
|
Petition seeking enforcement of Bill of Rights was wrongly brought in Constitutional Court and dismissed as abuse of process.
Constitutional jurisdiction — enforcement of Part III (Bill of Rights) — Articles 28 and 128 — wrong forum/abuse of process — frivolous and vexatious proceedings — civil restraint orders; procedural compliance for record complaints.
|
23 January 2019 |
|
Petitioner failed to prove widespread corrupt practices under s.97(2)(a); election upheld and credibility findings affirmed.
Electoral law – s.97(2)(a) Electoral Process Act – void election – corrupt/illegal practices – bribery, distribution of goods, intimidation – standard of proof in election petitions: fairly high degree of convincing clarity – burden to prove candidate’s knowledge/consent or agent’s conduct – deference to trial judge on credibility and corroboration.
|
23 January 2019 |