|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| June 2019 |
|
|
A guilty plea must admit sufficient facts; a bare admission of the offence label is insufficient and warrants acquittal.
Criminal law – Plea of guilty – Requirement to admit sufficient facts under section 204 CPC – Plea must disclose elements of indecent assault – Inadequate plea and statement of facts render conviction unsupported.
|
5 June 2019 |
|
Trial court erred rejecting a reasonable explanation for possession of recently stolen property; conviction and sentence set aside.
Criminal law — Recent possession of stolen property — Duty to give reasonable explanation — Court's assessment of demeanour — Identification evidence — Alternative conviction for receiving stolen property.
|
5 June 2019 |
|
|
4 June 2019 |
|
|
4 June 2019 |
|
Wrongful dismissals upheld; reinstatement/re-engagement denied; two months' pay in lieu of notice awarded; no costs ordered.
Labour law — Collective bargaining and strike procedure — Whether a staff gathering amounted to a strike; burden of proof on employer to show who withdrew labour; remedies for wrongful dismissal — reinstatement exceptional; re-engagement procedural/practical limits; damages measured by reasonable notice period; costs discretionary.
|
4 June 2019 |
|
Across‑the‑board dismissals for alleged strike were wrongful; two months' pay awarded, reinstatement and re‑engagement not ordered.
Labour law — strike definition and ballot legality — burden to prove participation in strike lies with employer alleging misconduct — reinstatement rare, re‑engagement discretionary and practicability‑dependent — damages for wrongful dismissal usually measured by notice period — costs discretionary.
|
4 June 2019 |
|
|
4 June 2019 |
| May 2019 |
|
|
Whether a pay‑slip gross‑up for tax creates an accrued contractual service‑allowance right for computing retirement benefits.
Employment law — service allowance — whether pay‑slip grossed up for tax creates accrued contractual entitlement — employer grossing up to cushion tax does not alter contractual percentage used to compute terminal benefits; appellate review of perverse or misapprehended factual findings.
|
29 May 2019 |
|
High Court retains concurrent jurisdiction to hear counterclaims challenging re-entry, cancellation and renumbering of land despite Lands Act provisions.
Lands Act ss.13(3) & 15(1) – High Court and Lands Tribunal have concurrent jurisdiction; certificate of re-entry; cancellation and renumbering of title; jurisdictional objections; allegations of fraud; section 34 Lands and Deeds Registry Act – remedy for irregular repossession.
|
28 May 2019 |
|
High Court retains concurrent jurisdiction with Lands Tribunal; fraud allegations permit land disputes to be tried in High Court.
Lands Act – sections 13(3) and 15(1) – permissive jurisdiction; High Court and Lands Tribunal have concurrent jurisdiction in land disputes; allegations of fraud justify High Court proceedings; jurisdictional objections may be raised at any stage.
|
28 May 2019 |
|
Whether statutory minimum wages/allowances apply and if appellants, not being casuals, were entitled to allowances and notice pay.
Employment law – definition of ‘casual employee’ – continuous service exceeding six months removes ‘casual’ status; Minimum Wages and Conditions of Employment (S.I. No. 2 of 2011, as amended) – applies to casual and other workers and creates enforceable entitlements for ‘General Worker’; wrongful termination – notice pay as remedy; interest and costs for failure to defend/unreasonable delay
|
28 May 2019 |
|
A Certificate of Title is conclusive; absence and an unmeritorious counterclaim do not justify setting aside judgment.
Land law – Certificate of Title – s.33 Lands and Deeds Registry Act – conclusive evidence of ownership; Civil procedure – judgment in absence – Order 35 rr.3 & 5 – setting aside requires sufficient cause and a meritorious defence; Service of hearing notice; Counterclaim based on letter of offer insufficient against registered title.
|
28 May 2019 |
|
Public-law relief (declarations/mandamus) requires judicial review; wrong originating process rendered High Court judgment void.
Road Traffic Act s.13 (consultation of absolute owner) – breach of statutory duty – tort remedy for breach of statutory duty – judicial review required for ultra vires/mandamus relief – jurisdictional consequences of wrong originating process (writ v. Order 53)
|
28 May 2019 |
|
Public‑law relief alleging ultra vires actions and mandamus must be sought by judicial review, not by writ of summons.
Road Traffic Act s13 – duty to consult registered absolute owner before transfer; Judicial review v. writ of summons – jurisdictional limits; Breach of statutory duty – private tort remedy; Sheriff’s sale and title acquisition; Nullity of judgment for wrong originating process.
|
28 May 2019 |
|
Whether separate monetary remedies may be awarded for the same loss where dismissal is both wrongful and unfair.
Employment law – wrongful and unfair dismissal – procedural breaches of disciplinary code; substantive reasons unproven; remedy – single consolidated award for one compensatory event; procedural compliance and ex parte judgment; discretionary sale of personal-to-holder vehicle; contractual benefits following summary dismissal.
|
28 May 2019 |
|
Repeated unauthorised overdrafts and deposits constituted dishonest conduct justifying summary dismissal despite procedural irregularities.
Employment law – disciplinary procedure – repeated unauthorised overdrafts and unauthorised deposits – dishonest conduct – scope of judicial review of employer disciplinary decisions – procedural irregularities not necessarily fatal where misconduct admitted.
|
23 May 2019 |
|
Court upheld rape conviction finding sufficient corroboration and increased sentence from 20 to 35 years imprisonment.
Criminal law – Rape – Identification evidence and corroboration – Holistic assessment of witness identification (moonlight, prior acquaintance, opportunity and appellant's admissions) – Appellant's admissions as corroboration – Sentencing – aggravated circumstances and appellate increase of term.
|
21 May 2019 |
|
Leave to appeal refused: domestic property dispute did not raise a point of law of public importance.
Leave to appeal — Court of Appeal Act s.13(3) — point of law of public importance — scope of Supreme Court leave — property adjustment disputes are generally non-public issues — Practice Direction No.1 of 2002 — requirement to cite Act, section, rule or order — procedural irregularity and competence of application.
|
17 May 2019 |
|
Applicant's request to extend time to file a labour complaint denied for inordinate delay and insufficient explanation.
Industrial & Labour Relations Act s85(3) - extension of time to present complaints; Rule 47 not substitute for statutory proviso; Limitation Act inapplicable where statute prescribes period; inordinate delay; need for plausible explanation and exhaustion of administrative channels; discretionary nature of leave to file out of time.
|
16 May 2019 |
|
An employer may lawfully dismiss where a reasonable investigation yields a substratum of facts, and courts must not retry disciplinary findings.
Employment law – wrongful dismissal – substratum of facts required to support disciplinary dismissal; standard of proof lower than criminal standard. Procedural fairness – employer's investigation and opportunity to respond sufficient; disciplinary process not equivalent to criminal trial
Evidence – failure by employee to answer specific allegations may justify adverse inference. Role of appellate courts – must not retry disciplinary decisions but assess reasonableness of employer's conduct
|
15 May 2019 |
| April 2019 |
|
|
Dismissal upheld where employee refused to attend disciplinary hearings and procedural flaws were not sufficiently gross to invalidate dismissal.
Employment law – wrongful dismissal – disciplinary procedure – right to be heard – employee refusal to attend disciplinary hearing – ACAS guidance – procedural irregularities not automatically fatal – appeal routes and apparent bias.
|
18 April 2019 |
|
A court cannot compel the respondent to sell institutional government houses to sitting tenants when those houses are not for sale.
Civil service home ownership; Institutional houses; Circular No.12 of 1996 clause 1.2; Ancillary use to institution; No court power to compel sale; Discrimination allegation; Factual findings not perverse.
|
18 April 2019 |
|
Whether a defective schedule invalidated excise on airtime, and whether wrongful excise on data should be refunded or escheat to the State.
Tax law — Customs & Excise — Validity and effect of schedules lacking express inducing sections — Excise on telecommunications services — valuation of airtime — consumption tax borne by consumers — distributor discounts as distribution costs — treatment of erroneously collected tax (escheat).
|
10 April 2019 |
|
|
10 April 2019 |
|
Whether unlawful development by an occupier defeats an interlocutory injunction protecting occupation rights.
Interlocutory injunction — requirement of clear right, irreparable injury and balance of convenience — applicant's conduct (clean hands) — unlawful development under planning law — Urban and Regional Planning Act s.71 — injunction conditioned on compliance with development laws — competing lease and memorandum of understanding.
|
1 April 2019 |
| March 2019 |
|
|
|
28 March 2019 |
|
Whether employer had reasonable grounds and acted reasonably in dismissing employee for alleged forgery; court must not substitute its view.
Employment law – wrongful dismissal – scope of review by Industrial Relations Court – employer investigations and reasonableness test – fraudulent conduct justifying summary dismissal – appellate competence on mixed law and fact.
|
28 March 2019 |
|
Whether a financier was liable under a letter of credit: court held it was neither issuing nor advising bank and could enforce loan security.
Banking law – Letters of credit – UCP 600 – Separation of credit and sale contract (Article 4) – Duty to examine documents on issuing bank (Article 14) – Distinction between issuing, advising and confirming/nominated banks – Mortgage enforcement following borrower default.
|
28 March 2019 |
|
Arbitration cannot be imposed by the court suo motu; service, authentication and party-defects were curable—amendments and leave to serve permitted.
Civil procedure — service outside jurisdiction: leave required but non-compliance curable; authentication of foreign document — unauthenticated instrument valid between parties and signatory estopped from objecting; locus standi — amend/ substitute parties or plead cession; arbitration — court cannot refer to arbitration suo motu; stay must be sought under Arbitration Act s10 and Rules.
|
26 March 2019 |
|
Whether the appellant was validly dismissed for authorising suspicious cash refunds and entitled to accrued benefits and vehicle purchase.
Employment law – wrongful dismissal – disciplinary procedure and natural justice – dishonest conduct and negligence causing loss – forced leave by third party – accrued benefits and personal-to-holder vehicle eligibility.
|
22 March 2019 |
|
The respondent bank failed to ensure the appellants consented to continuing liability, so later facilities could not be secured by their mortgages.
Third-party mortgages – continuing security – bank’s duty to inform guarantor/surety – obligation to ensure independent legal advice – undue influence/relationship of trust – discharge of guarantee and consequent discharge of securities.
|
20 March 2019 |
|
Limitation periods bar joinder to pursue piercing of the corporate veil; amendments allowed if arising from same facts; witnesses not injuncted.
Limitation Act — joinder after expiry barred; Amendment of pleadings — Order 20(5)(5) allowed where new claim arises from same facts; Piercing corporate veil — s.383 applies in any proceedings but does not waive limitation; No property in a witness — injunctive restraint on testimony not warranted; Documents supplied at discovery — late objections may be barred.
|
20 March 2019 |
|
Statutory limitation bars post‑limitation joinder and veil‑piercing; pleadings may be amended if arising from same facts.
Limitation of actions — Joinder after limitation period — Amendment of pleadings (Order 20(5)) — Piercing corporate veil — Companies Act s.383 — Jurisdictional nature of limitation — Witness confidentiality and expunging evidence.
|
20 March 2019 |
|
An arbitrator's non-disclosure of a relationship with the respondent can render an award contrary to public policy and void.
Arbitration — Duty of disclosure — Arbitrator's continuing obligation to disclose relationships (Regulation 2 SI No.12 of 2007) — Non-disclosure creates perception of bias — Award may be set aside under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and Article 34 of the Model Law as contrary to public policy — Article 12 challenge does not bar later annulment.
|
20 March 2019 |
|
Arbitrator’s non‑disclosure of a personal relationship can create perceived bias and justify setting aside the award on public policy grounds.
Arbitration — Duty of disclosure — Arbitrator must disclose prior interests/relationships — Non‑disclosure creates perception of bias — Public policy (Section 17 Arbitration Act & Article 34 Model Law) — Article 12 challenge to appointment does not bar later setting aside — Courts’ limited review of merits.
|
20 March 2019 |
|
Non‑disclosure by an arbitrator of a personal relationship can create perceived bias and justify setting aside an award as contrary to public policy.
Arbitration law – Duty of disclosure – Arbitrator’s personal/family relationship – Perception of bias – Public policy ground under Section 17/Article 34 – Article 12 challenge and waiver – Judicial review limited but permits intervention for non‑disclosure.
|
20 March 2019 |
|
An employer’s creation of a Minister‑approved pension scheme displaces prior accrued benefit formula; employee consent is not required.
Employment law – Pension schemes – Interpretation of clause importing paragraph 8 of SI No.119/1997 – Effect of employer’s establishment of Minister‑approved pension scheme on accrued retirement benefits – Consent and acquiescence – Transfer of liability via contributions/letter of 4 August 2011.
|
19 March 2019 |
|
Unfounded public allegations of judicial corruption amount to contempt; apology mitigates but a punitive fine was imposed.
Contempt of court — scandalizing the court by imputing corruption to judges — limits of permissible criticism — mitigation by apology and guilty plea — sentencing: fine or imprisonment.
|
15 March 2019 |
|
Unsubstantiated rumours, withdrawn and apologised for by their author, cannot support a contempt citation against the mentioned person.
Contempt of court — scandalizing the court by imputing judicial bias — allegation based on rumour — third‑party author’s apology and withdrawal — insufficiency to sustain contempt citation.
|
15 March 2019 |
|
An unsubstantiated, withdrawn allegation cannot sustain a contempt citation against an alleged contemnor.
Contempt of court – scandalizing the court – imputation of bias against a judge – necessity of substantiation for contempt citations – effect of withdrawal and unreserved apology by author on contempt proceedings against a third party.
|
15 March 2019 |
|
Written, unsubstantiated accusations of judicial corruption constitute contempt and attract a deterrent fine or imprisonment.
Contempt of Court – written allegations of judicial corruption – plea of guilty and apology – mitigation and sentencing – deterrent sentence to protect judicial independence and public confidence.
|
15 March 2019 |
|
Court held the later claims were not res judicata, were not time‑barred under section 19(1)(b), and deceased plaintiffs may be substituted for trial.
Civil procedure — res judicata — conditions for plea of res judicata; Limitation — section 19(1)(b) Limitation Act 1939 and constructive trust; Substitution — deceased plaintiffs and personal representatives; Abuse of process and procedural technicalities vs. trial on merits.
|
13 March 2019 |
|
An out-of-time appeal without leave is incompetent; a judge's s305(1) recommendation after the appeal period places the matter within the Executive and bars a later appeal.
Criminal procedure – appeal filed out of time without leave – Rule 12 Supreme Court Rules – section 305(1) Criminal Procedure Code – recommendation to President/prerogative of mercy bars subsequent appeal after appeal period.
|
13 March 2019 |
|
A deficient trial judgment does not mandate acquittal where the record establishes aggravated robbery beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Proof of violence in obtaining property – Trial judgment requirements under s.169 Criminal Procedure Code – Defective judgment does not automatically require acquittal where evidence proves offence – Sentencing: requirement to give reasons; limits on appellate enhancement absent proper charge.
|
13 March 2019 |
|
Ballistics reports may be admissible via the arresting officer; eyewitness and circumstantial evidence can sustain armed robbery convictions.
Evidence – Ballistics report admissibility; arresting officer may tender report where no objection. Criminal law – proof of firearm use; eyewitness and circumstantial evidence may establish armed robbery
Identification – visual ID and recovery of stolen property link accused to offence
|
13 March 2019 |
|
|
13 March 2019 |
|
|
13 March 2019 |
|
A deficient trial judgment did not vitiate conviction where evidence proved aggravated robbery, but sentencing required stated reasons.
Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Sufficiency of evidence; Criminal procedure – Judgment writing – Section 169(1) compliance; Sentencing – requirement to give reasons and prosecution’s role (Section 302); Trial management – related offences should be tried together to avoid multiplicity (Article 18).
|
13 March 2019 |
|
Leave to seek judicial review was refused because the challenge to a 2005 decision was inordinately delayed and would harm public administration.
Administrative law — Judicial review — Leave to apply — Limitation — Order 53 rule 4 — One‑off decision v continuing decision — Implementation does not restart limitation — Inordinate delay — Public interest and protection of good administration — Sufficient interest and prima facie case insufficient where delay fatal.
|
11 March 2019 |
|
Commencing fresh proceedings instead of setting aside an unchallenged earlier judgment constituted duplicity and abuse of process.
Civil procedure — Duplicity of actions; abuse of process; Rules of the Supreme Court O.113; setting aside judgment for lack of service; risk of conflicting enforceable judgments.
|
11 March 2019 |