|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 1989 |
|
|
Application for leave to appeal out of time refused for inordinate unexplained delay and weak prospects on the merits.
Civil procedure – Application for leave to appeal out of time – Inordinate and unexplained delay – discretion to extend time requires satisfactory explanation and arguable prospects of success – Misleading ex parte stay does not excuse absence of an appeal – Squatters’ lack of legal title.
|
19 September 1989 |
|
Appeal allowed: preliminary point set aside and reopened; evidence must determine if the President effected the dismissals before courts are ousted.
Administrative law – challenge to termination of military commissions – Regulation purporting to make cancellations final – Justiciability – Whether President effected cancellations – Preliminary objection requiring factual inquiry and admission of evidence.
|
13 September 1989 |
|
Delay and prejudice to third parties justified refusal to set aside default judgment; specific performance confined to payment conditions.
Civil procedure – setting aside default judgment – delay and promptness – bona fides – prejudice to third parties – variation/confined specific performance – conditions precedent (payment, occupation monies, interest).
|
13 September 1989 |
|
Court upheld identification and witness credibility; convictions and concurrent 16-year sentences affirmed.
Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Identification evidence and identification parade – Witness credibility – Failure to call every potential witness – Delay in reporting – Weight of circumstantial/physical evidence.
|
12 September 1989 |
|
Appeal allowed: vending agreement and undisclosed liabilities defeated respondents’ monetary and wrongful dismissal awards.
Contract/Company law – Vending (share purchase) agreement – effect of agreement on parties’ rights and obligations – undisclosed liabilities diminishing purchaser’s payment obligation – counterclaim – proof of damages – wrongful dismissal where officers vacate under share sale agreement.
|
12 September 1989 |
|
An employee’s unauthorised taking of employer’s money, even if intended to be repaid, can justify summary dismissal.
Employment law – summary dismissal – unauthorised appropriation of employer’s money replaced by IOU – whether intent to repay negates theft/fraud – applicability of criminal principles in civil wrongful dismissal claims – court’s inability to substitute a lighter penalty for employer’s dismissal.
|
7 September 1989 |