|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 1992 |
|
|
Payment of undisputed repair costs did not bar a separate claim for loss of use absent consideration or equitable grounds.
Insurance/subrogation – release form and accord and satisfaction – whether payment of undisputed repair costs discharges unliquidated loss of use claim – part‑payment rule (Foakes v Beer) – estoppel and inequity – 'without prejudice' correspondence.
|
20 March 1992 |
|
An employer's promise to provide return passage must be exercised within a reasonable time; employee delay bars recovery of later higher fares.
Employment law – contractual obligation to provide return passage – "whenever ready to travel" construed as within reasonable time – reasonable period depends on facts (90 days here) – employee delay precludes entitlement to later higher fare – limited estoppel.
|
19 March 1992 |
|
Appellant acquitted: D.P.P.'s public non-prosecution, witness bias and credibility misdirections rendered the murder conviction unsafe.
Evidence — affidavit evidence on contentious matters; Bail — appeal against murder and inapplicability under section 123; Coroner’s order lawfully directed to police; D.P.P.’s public non-prosecution generally bars reopening without fresh evidence; Amendment of charge — court may upgrade defective information; Witnesses — possible bias of relatives/friends and proper credibility assessment; Self-defence — honest and reasonable belief in imminent danger.
|
19 March 1992 |
|
Employer held vicariously liable for employee’s negligent driving; damages allocated between loss of expectation and fatal-accident award (K35,000).
Negligent driving; vicarious liability of employer for employee’s driving; admissibility of driver’s admissions to police in civil proceedings; allocation of damages between Law Reform Act and Fatal Accidents Acts; inflation-adjusted quantum.
|
19 March 1992 |
|
Restoration refused: repentance and supervised employment cannot outweigh systematic dishonest conduct and public interest.
Restoration to Roll – Section 33 Legal Practitioners Act – Disbarment for systematic dishonesty – Limited, rare jurisdiction to restore – Rehabilitation vs public interest and professional integrity.
|
19 March 1992 |
|
A D.P.P.’s public decision not to prosecute bars restart without fresh evidence; conviction quashed for misdirections and self‑defence.
Criminal law — Coroner’s recommendation to charge — D.P.P.’s discretion — Effect of public D.P.P. statement not to prosecute — Amendment of charge at trial — Credibility of interested witnesses — Self‑defence — Admissibility of affidavit evidence on contentious issues — Bail on appeal in murder conviction.
|
18 March 1992 |
|
A landlord is bound by reasons in a notice to quit; s11(1)(e) requires proof of superior tenancy and intent to dispose as whole for better yield.
Landlord and tenant – notice to quit binds landlord to reasons stated – Section 11(1)(e) Cap.440 requires proof of superior tenancy and intention to let/otherwise dispose of whole property for better rental yield – Section 11(2) five-year bar protects recent purchasers/transferees – transferee cannot evade protection by administrative transfer – essential evidentiary requirements to oppose grant of new tenancy.
|
15 March 1992 |
|
Dismissal for failure to amend pleadings was irregular; interlocutory striking out is exceptional and parties must be heard.
Civil procedure — Amendment and striking out of pleadings — Power to amend on court's own motion used sparingly — Interlocutory orders and dismissal for no cause of action — Article 29(8) (presidential detention) — Necessity to hear counsel before dismissing suit.
|
3 March 1992 |
|
Whether a custodial sentence was justified for a first offender given quantity, trafficking and statutory fine option.
Sentence; Dangerous Drugs Act s.19A; unlawful possession vs trafficking; aggravating circumstances; first offender; fine versus custodial sentence; concealment and cross-border importation; manifest excessiveness.
|
3 March 1992 |
|
Procedural breaches, interested disciplinary panel members and unproven charges justified reinstatement but back pay was limited for mitigation.
Employment law – wrongful dismissal – failure to comply with disciplinary code and grievance procedure – interested members on disciplinary panel – natural justice breached – unsubstantiated charges – exceptional circumstances warranting reinstatement – mitigation of loss and limitation of back pay.
|
3 March 1992 |