Results.
10 judgments found.
|
|
|
| March 2012 |
|
|
The petitioner failed to prove corrupt or illegal practices by the respondent; petition dismissed and election upheld.
-
Electoral law — Election petition under s.93 Electoral Act — Allegations of corrupt and illegal practices (bribery, undue influence, misuse of civil servants and state resources, conditional return of voters’ cards, inflammatory statements) — Candidate’s liability for acts of agents or state officials — Standard of proof in election petitions higher than balance of probabilities — Necessity for cogent, direct evidence linking misconduct to candidate and showing effect on the majority of voters
|
29 March 2012 |
|
Consolidation refused where claims arise from different transactions and plaintiffs lack agreed single legal representation.
-
Civil procedure — Consolidation of actions — Order III(5) High Court Act and Order 4 r.9 whitebook — Distinct causes of action versus common parentage — Requirement of single solicitor conduct; partial consolidation limited
|
25 March 2012 |
|
Petitioner failed to prove corrupt practices or material non-compliance sufficient to void the Lufwanyama parliamentary election.
-
Election law — higher standard of proof in election petitions; corrupt/illegal practices (bribery, treating, voter buying) — agency and knowledge; ferrying voters/private transport on polling day; verification of ballot papers, rejected/unstamped ballots; electoral officer administrative errors vs. substantial non-compliance
|
25 March 2012 |
|
Whether the respondent’s defamatory statements and vote‑buying rendered the election not free and fair, warranting annulment.
-
Electoral law — Election nullification — Publication of false statements (s.83) — Vote‑buying/bribery (s.79) — Intimidation by traditional leaders — ECZ logistical failures and postponement of polling — standard of proof in election petitions
|
21 March 2012 |
|
Failure to prove corrupt practices or substantial electoral impact meant the election was held valid and petition dismissed.
-
Electoral law — election petition standard of proof higher than ordinary civil cases; bribery, undue influence and agency — requirement to prove candidate's knowledge/consent; government programmes and timing of donations; substantial effect on result required to void election; electoral commission's conduct — substantial compliance standard
|
21 March 2012 |
|
Court upholds corruption and abuse-of-office convictions; ACC Act’s explanation-presumption consistent with constitutional rights.
-
Criminal law — corruption and abuse of office — Part IV ACC Act and statutory presumption requiring satisfactory explanation — compatibility with constitutional right to silence; sufficiency of circumstantial and documentary evidence; admissibility/authentication of foreign documents and expert opinion evidence; investigative omissions and fairness of trial
|
15 March 2012 |
|
Bail pending appeal denied where applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances and was a potential flight risk.
-
Criminal procedure — bail pending appeal under s.332 — requirement of exceptional circumstances — considerations include likelihood of success on appeal, sentence length, prejudice and flight risk, particularly for foreign nationals
|
8 March 2012 |
|
Failure to comply with discovery directions waived rights to object; challenged documents were not "without prejudice" and both expungement applications were dismissed.
-
Civil procedure — discovery and inspection — failure to comply with directions — waiver of right to object to documents; Evidence — "without prejudice" communications — admissibility requires genuine settlement negotiation and offer; Relevance — interlocutory expungement inappropriate where statement of claim lacks specificity
|
6 March 2012 |
|
Court refused interim injunction over disputed land title, holding the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending trial.
-
Interim injunctions — land — registered title v. asserted customary occupation — irreparable harm and adequacy of damages — balance of convenience — preservation of status quo pending trial; alleged improper acquisition of title
|
5 March 2012 |
|
Court pierced the corporate veil, holding the respondent’s director personally liable and refusing an instalment stay for insufficient disclosure.
-
Companies law — Piercing corporate veil under s.383 — Director personally liable where company used to perpetrate fraud; Execution — refusal of stay and instalment plan for lack of disclosure under Order 36 r9 and White Book Order 47 r1; Evidence required to lift veil; Costs and leave to appeal
|
1 March 2012 |