|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1967 |
|
|
A magistrate's contempt finding for brief lateness was set aside for procedural non-compliance and improper prosecutorial intervention.
Contempt of court; Subordinate Courts Ordinance s.41 — mandatory transmission of minutes to High Court; Lateness as contempt; Prosecutor's improper intervention; Imputation of counsel's conduct to client.
|
27 December 1967 |
|
Known ownership bars a s.287 charge; constructive conveyance requires specific authorization and knowledge by the accused.
Criminal law – Conveying stolen property (s.287) – Owner known precludes charge under s.287; managing director not automatically liable; "convey in any manner" may include causing conveyance but constructive conveyance requires specific knowledge and authorization.
|
22 December 1967 |
|
A court should not impose corporal punishment for offences committed prior to an offender’s reformatory order; substituted imprisonment imposed.
Criminal procedure – Sentencing – Relationship between sentences – Reformatory order and corporal punishment – Imposition of corporal punishment for offences committed prior to reformatory detention improper.
|
15 December 1967 |
|
Corporal punishment should not be imposed on an offender serving a reformatory sentence for a prior offence.
Criminal procedure – Sentencing – Reformatory order vs corporal punishment – Whether corporal punishment may be imposed on an offender serving a reformatory sentence for a prior offence – Sentencing substitution on appeal.
|
15 December 1967 |
|
An order forfeiting a firearm under s.39(3) Fauna Conservation Ordinance is part of the sentence and therefore appealable.
Criminal procedure – Appeal against sentence – Forfeiture under s.39(3) Fauna Conservation Ordinance – Order of forfeiture part of the sentence and appealable.
|
4 December 1967 |
|
A subordinate court may commit to the High Court only if greater punishment than it can impose is required.
Criminal procedure — Transfer of sentencing — Subordinate court may commit to High Court only if it believes greater punishment than its jurisdiction permits is required; magistrate's preference to refer insufficient.
|
1 December 1967 |
| November 1967 |
|
|
Guilty plea valid where accused appreciated charge and admitted facts establishing intent to secretly and wrongfully confine.
Criminal procedure – Guilty plea – Requirements: accused must appreciate the charge, intend to plead guilty, and admit facts sufficient for conviction; Criminal law – Abduction – essential element: intent to secretly and wrongfully confine.
|
24 November 1967 |
|
Costs cannot be ordered against the prosecution under s160(2) where a sworn complaint provides reasonable grounds.
Criminal procedure – Costs against prosecution – Section 160(2) proviso – ‘‘reasonable grounds for complaint’’ – withdrawal for inability to call evidence unrelated to absence of reasonable grounds – plea of not guilty insufficient to rebut sworn complaint.
|
24 November 1967 |
|
Requirement that pupils sing the national anthem and salute the flag was objectively secular and reasonably justifiable despite religious objections.
Constitutional law – Freedom of conscience (s21) – High Court jurisdiction under s28 – Ministerial education regulations – Objective test for whether ceremony is religious – National anthem/flag duties reasonably justifiable under s21(5).
|
10 November 1967 |
| October 1967 |
|
|
A juvenile court must secure a parent/guardian's attendance under s.125(1); failure invalidates the conviction and orders.
Juvenile law – Section 125(1) Juveniles Ordinance – Mandatory requirement to secure parent/guardian attendance or make finding of unreasonableness – Non-compliance renders conviction and orders void.
|
20 October 1967 |
| September 1967 |
|
|
Extension of time for appeal requires sufficient reasons or a prima facie meritorious appeal; an unequivocal guilty plea defeats extension.
Criminal procedure — Extension of time to appeal — s.295 Criminal Procedure Code — Must show reasons sufficient in themselves or a prima facie meritorious appeal — Unequivocal guilty plea defeats appeal prospects.
|
29 September 1967 |
| August 1967 |
|
|
Family hardship does not justify reduced sentence; prior convictions and public protection can warrant increased custodial sentence.
Criminal procedure – Sentencing – Family hardship not a ground for mitigation; prior convictions reduce entitlement to leniency; guilty plea and cooperation as mitigating factors; public protection and prevalence justify increased custodial sentence; backdating of sentence to date of detention.
|
24 August 1967 |
|
Summary dismissal justified where unauthorised personal profit, secrecy and breaches of duty destroyed employer's confidence.
Employment law — Summary dismissal — Misconduct, unauthorised diversion of employer's business, breach of confidence, failure to follow express instructions; onus on employer to justify summary dismissal; recovery of unpaid accounts by counter-claim.
|
23 August 1967 |
|
Council's politically motivated revocation of a market trading licence was ultra vires, discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Licence v lease – daily stall occupancy was a licence, not a tenancy; Markets Ordinance s.3(a) – "control and management" permits grant/termination of licences by resolution; Public authority discretionary powers – must conform to law and natural justice; Judicial review – courts may probe bad faith, extraneous considerations or unreasonableness; Political discrimination – terminating a licence because of political opinion is discriminatory under Constitution s.25; Deprivation of property – removal of stall constituted deprivation under s.13.
|
22 August 1967 |
|
Council could terminate market licences, but termination must be fair; here it was ultra vires and politically discriminatory.
Administrative law – local authority discretion – Markets Ordinance s.3(a) – licence v lease – revocation of licence – natural justice and Wednesbury unreasonableness – political discrimination contrary to Constitution s.25 – deprivation of property s.13.
|
22 August 1967 |
|
Convictions quashed where confession was admitted without a 'trial within a trial' and uncorroborated accomplice evidence was unreliable.
Evidence — Confessions: voluntariness must be determined by a 'trial within a trial' before admission. Accomplice testimony: uncorroborated accomplice evidence requires caution and a formal warning. Criminal procedure — appellate revision to quash convictions where procedural defects render convictions unsafe
|
4 August 1967 |
|
No case to answer where principal prosecution witnesses were unreliable accomplices and evidence was insufficient to convict.
Criminal procedure – case to answer – test: whether prosecution evidence could lead a reasonable tribunal to convict; no-case submission proper where essential element unproved or evidence manifestly unreliable; prosecution witness may be treated as hostile where trial testimony departs from preliminary inquiry; unreliable or partly false evidence given negligible weight; one accomplice cannot corroborate another; treason – requirement of overt act and reliable corroboration.
|
1 August 1967 |
| July 1967 |
|
|
An appeal from a local court is a rehearing limited to original witnesses; appellate courts cannot substitute more serious charges.
Criminal procedure – Appeal from local court – Rehearing under s.57 Local Courts Act – Limits on calling fresh evidence (reasons to be recorded) – Appellate court may not substitute more serious charges than those tried below.
|
21 July 1967 |
| June 1967 |
|
|
An appellate court may impose harsher, differentiated sentences on co-offenders based on antecedents and offence seriousness.
Criminal procedure – Sentencing – Joint enterprise – Differentiated sentences permissible where antecedents and character differ; prior convictions justify harsher penalty; appellate enhancement of lenient magistrates' sentences.
|
28 June 1967 |
|
Where the local rules are silent, substitution of a plaintiff may follow English RSC Order 15 r.6, requiring written consent and cost safeguards.
Civil procedure – High Court Rules not exhaustive; Orders 12, 14, 16; Order 16(1) permits alteration of particulars but not substitution of plaintiff; High Court Ordinance s.10 permits recourse to Rules of the Supreme Court (England); Order 15, rule 6 (RSC) governs addition/substitution of plaintiffs; written consent required for substituted plaintiff; amendments allowed where mistake genuine and defendant safeguarded on costs.
|
14 June 1967 |
|
The applicant cannot appeal to the High Court against the High Court's own revisional sentence; appeal rights preserved under s.309(4).
Criminal procedure – Revision – Effect of High Court decision; section 309(4) preserves rights of appeal; distinction between s.309(1)(a)(ii) (substitute sentence) and s.309(1)(a)(iv) (direct subordinate court to sentence); no appeal to High Court from its own revisional orders; appeals from revisional orders lie to Court of Appeal by leave.
|
2 June 1967 |
| May 1967 |
|
|
High Court may uphold a magistrate’s rejection of customary-law enforcement despite procedural defects, given substantial-justice mandate.
Constitutional supervisory jurisdiction of High Court; application despite absence of rules; magistrate cannot judicially notice African customary law; assessors or expert evidence required; Native Courts circular not self-proving—Evidence Act s.3; Local Courts Act s.61 substantial justice without undue regard to technicalities; customary law repugnancy to natural justice (Akamutwe).
|
26 May 1967 |
|
In absence of rules or legislation, local courts may receive unsworn evidence; Local Courts Rules default to subordinate court practice.
Local courts — Mode of receiving evidence — Whether evidence must be on oath — Local Courts Rules r.2; Local Courts Act s.67 rule‑making power; absence of rule or legislation — unsworn evidence permissible; default to subordinate court practice.
|
13 May 1967 |
|
A defendant's wish for legal representation does not alone justify transferring a local court slander action to a higher court.
Local Courts — transfer under s.53(1) — recorded reasons; Representation by counsel — desire alone insufficient to justify transfer; Transfer appropriate only for sufficiently complex cases; Local court jurisdiction to hear slander under customary law despite related criminal proceedings; Authorised officer's s.54 revision must allow parties opportunity to appeal.
|
12 May 1967 |
| April 1967 |
|
|
Refusal to give fingerprints while in lawful custody constitutes obstruction; officer's misstatement of charge irrelevant.
Criminal law — Obstruction of police — Refusal to give fingerprints — Police Act s.17 — Penal Code s.222(b) — Lawful custody — Officer's ignorance or misstatement of charge irrelevant — Omission of "wilfully" in particulars not fatal (s.323 CPC).
|
28 April 1967 |
|
Defendant negligent in overtaking; damages awarded but reduced to account for repair-related betterment.
Tort — Negligence: liability for collision when overtaking; Damages: repair costs, loss of use; deduction for betterment where repairs improve vehicle beyond pre-accident condition.
|
15 April 1967 |
|
Section 39(3) allows discretionary forfeiture and cannot be used to forfeit property of non‑offenders.
Fauna Conservation Ordinance s.39(3) – Forfeiture of instruments used in illegal hunting is discretionary; court cannot forfeit property of persons not convicted under the Ordinance.
|
5 April 1967 |
| March 1967 |
|
|
Sustained passive indifference and repeated abandonment constituted matrimonial cruelty warranting divorce; custody and maintenance orders made.
Family law – Divorce – Cruelty – Test: conduct must be grave and weighty and causative of substantial injury to health or reasonable apprehension – Cruelty need not be aimed at the innocent spouse – Passive sustained indifference may constitute matrimonial cruelty – Discretion to grant decree despite respondent's adultery – Custody, access, maintenance and permission to remove children.
|
23 March 1967 |
|
Falling asleep at the wheel is no defence to a charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
Road traffic — Dangerous driving causing death — Falling asleep at wheel not a defence; Evidence — Break in chain where identifying witness absent — other satisfactory evidence can suffice; Automatism — sleep not excusing dangerous driving; Admissibility — trial-within-a-trial to test alleged statements.
|
14 March 1967 |
|
Pre-sentence custody caused by the accused's refusal to cooperate is not credited when computing sentence; appeal dismissed.
Sentencing — computation of custody time — pre-sentence custody attributable to accused — refusal to cooperate (fingerprints) — proof of prior convictions — effect of plea on sentence; recidivism as sentencing factor.
|
10 March 1967 |
| January 1967 |
|
|
Petitioner failed to prove cruelty from refusal of sexual intercourse; grave allegations require clear proof and medical corroboration.
Family law — Divorce — Cruelty: must be grave and weighty and cause or risk injury to health; civil standard applies but grave allegations demand clear proof; persistent refusal of sexual intercourse may amount to cruelty but usually requires medical corroboration.
|
23 January 1967 |