|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2020 |
|
|
Circumstantial evidence and joint enterprise principles upheld the appellant's murder conviction despite witness inconsistencies.
Criminal law – circumstantial evidence – joint enterprise liability – murder by suffocation – witness credibility and partial corroboration – refusal to reduce to manslaughter.
|
8 December 2020 |
|
A 25‑year manslaughter sentence was manifestly excessive; guilty plea and first‑offender status justified reduction to seven years.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty and first-offender status as strong mitigating factors – Error in principle where judge fails to state consideration of mitigation – Appellate interference where sentence is manifestly excessive – Appropriate substitute sentence for manslaughter.
|
8 December 2020 |
|
Appellate court reduced a manifestly excessive manslaughter sentence after the trial judge failed to consider key mitigating factors.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Excessive sentence – Appellate interference where trial judge fails to state consideration of mitigation – Plea of guilty and first‑offender status as strong mitigating factors – Sentencing range vis‑à‑vis extenuated murder – Public interest in gender‑based violence deterrence.
|
8 December 2020 |
|
Court upheld striking off Attorney General and counsel as wrongly joined, rendering remaining motions incompetent.
Civil procedure — Misjoinder and striking off parties — Attorney General not a substitute for a company in liquidation — Counsel/firm cannot be joined as a party merely for representing a company — Motions rendered incompetent where no opposing parties remain.
|
7 December 2020 |
|
An appeal dismissed for lack of mandatory leave is final; relaunching without prior leave is incompetent.
Civil procedure — Competency of motions — Rule 48(4) Supreme Court Rules — Requirement for leave to file out of time — Finality of Supreme Court judgments — Appeal dismissed for lack of leave cannot be restored — Inherent jurisdiction not available to remedy counsel’s negligence.
|
4 December 2020 |
|
Absence of leave to appeal deprives appellate jurisdiction and appeals dismissed for technicality cannot be restored.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Absence of leave to appeal deprives appellate court of jurisdiction; appeals dismissed on technicality cannot be restored; remedy against negligent counsel.
|
4 December 2020 |
|
An unserved ‘unless’ dismissal order is ineffective; appeal restored where delay excused and no prejudice shown.
Civil procedure — restoration of appeal — Rule 71 — ‘unless orders’ — effect of non‑service of dismissal order — discretion to restore where no prejudice shown.
|
4 December 2020 |
|
An 'unless order' not communicated to the affected party is deprived of effect; appeal restored despite delay.
Civil procedure — restoration of appeal — Rule 71 Supreme Court Rules — 'unless order' — non-service/deprived of effect — inordinate delay excused where order not communicated — no prejudice to respondent — restoration allowed.
|
4 December 2020 |
|
Appeal against refusal of special leave to review dismissal dismissed; notice served on counsel on record decisive.
Civil procedure — dismissal for want of prosecution via “unless order” — service of hearing notices on advocates on record — change of advocate and notice requirements — review on fresh evidence (Order 37/34 principles) — appellate restraint on findings of fact — defective record of appeal and discretionary non-dismissal.
|
4 December 2020 |
| November 2020 |
|
|
|
24 November 2020 |
|
|
19 November 2020 |
|
|
19 November 2020 |
|
|
11 November 2020 |
|
Conviction for fatal arson unsafe where circumstantial evidence and lack of fire-origin expert left reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – arson causing death – reliance on evidence of relatives/victims – corroboration and danger of false implication – circumstantial evidence and drawing inferences – need for expert fire origin investigation – benefit of doubt where multiple inferences exist.
|
11 November 2020 |
|
Appellant’s convictions quashed where circumstantial evidence allowed alternative inferences and no fire expert corroboration existed.
Criminal law – arson and homicide – circumstantial evidence – alternative inferences – necessity to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence; witnesses with potential bias – relatives and victims – danger of false implication and requirement to assess/corroborate their evidence; value of expert fire investigation in arson prosecutions.
|
11 November 2020 |
|
|
11 November 2020 |
|
|
11 November 2020 |
|
|
10 November 2020 |
|
|
10 November 2020 |
|
|
10 November 2020 |
|
|
10 November 2020 |
|
|
10 November 2020 |
|
Weak identification corroborated by recent possession sustains the appellant's conviction; 45-year sentence affirmed.
Criminal law – Identification by single witness – Weak identification corroborated by recent possession or connecting link – Recent possession doctrine – Sentencing discretion and aggravating factors in aggravated robbery.
|
10 November 2020 |
|
|
10 November 2020 |
|
|
9 November 2020 |
|
|
6 November 2020 |
|
|
4 November 2020 |
| October 2020 |
|
|
|
28 October 2020 |
|
Application under slip rule improperly used to seek substantive rehearing and was filed out of time under Rule 48's fourteen‑day limit.
Civil procedure — Slip rule (Rule 78) — Correction limited to clerical errors or accidental slips, not substantive rehearing; Rule 48(5) — procedural route and 14‑day time limit for applications involving appellate decisions; Res judicata and finality of appellate judgments.
|
28 October 2020 |
|
|
27 October 2020 |
|
Applicant failed to disclose compelling reasons or prospects of success; leave to appeal refused and motion dismissed.
Appellate procedure - Leave to appeal to Supreme Court - Section 13 Court of Appeal Act - Threshold of reasonable prospects of success and compelling reasons - Affidavit must disclose specifics; land disputes not per se public importance.
|
27 October 2020 |
|
Leave to appeal denied where appellants failed to disclose compelling reasons or reasonable prospects under section 13.
Leave to appeal – Section 13 Court of Appeal Act – requirement to show compelling reasons and reasonable prospects of success – Rule 48 Supreme Court Rules – land dispute not automatically public importance.
|
27 October 2020 |
|
|
8 October 2020 |
|
An application to set aside a single-judge dismissal filed over three years late without leave was incompetent and dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure — Supreme Court Rules, Rule 48(1) and (4) — Time limit for challenging single-judge decisions (14 days) — Requirement of leave for late applications — Motion filed over three years late held incompetent and dismissed with costs.
|
6 October 2020 |
|
|
6 October 2020 |
|
Appellant’s motion and appeal dismissed for non‑compliance with mandatory time limits under Rules 48 and 54.
Civil procedure — appeal procedure — filing record of appeal out of time — leave to file out of time — Supreme Court Rules: Rule 12(1)-(2), Rule 48(1),(4), Rule 54 — time limits — competence of motion to vary single judge decision.
|
6 October 2020 |
|
Assessment was defective; appeal allowed, assessment set aside and remitted for recomputation with specified corrections.
Civil procedure — assessment of damages — duties when assessing multiple claimants — requirement to produce individual calculations; Employment/pension law — VSS computation — inclusion of allowances in VSS; Pension law — employer failed to account for 70% of actuarial reserve (30% paid) — distinction between ex gratia payments and pension; Evidence — burden of proof — court must not shift burden to defendant (utility allowance); Interest — correct rates and periods for awards; Joinder/res judicata — transferred employees' claims struck out.
|
5 October 2020 |
|
Assessment was incomplete; allowance inclusion in VSS upheld, many assessments remitted for recomputation by a referee.
Civil procedure — Assessment of damages — Mass claims — necessity for individualised, itemised computations or appointment of a referee under s.23 High Court Act; Employment/pension law — VSS and pension calculations — allowances included in emoluments for VSS; 70% actuarial reserve shortfall payable to deferred pensioners; Ex gratia payments versus pension; Interest — proper rates and periods; Burden of proof — claimants must prove allowance entitlements.
|
5 October 2020 |
|
|
2 October 2020 |
|
|
2 October 2020 |
|
|
1 October 2020 |
| September 2020 |
|
|
|
30 September 2020 |
|
|
30 September 2020 |
|
Whether rebuttal evidence was properly admitted and whether conviction and death sentence were justified amid a fight and mob-beating.
Criminal law – admissibility of rebuttal evidence – distinction between Part VI (s.210) for subordinate courts and Part IX (s.294) for High Court – identification by recognition – single-source fatal head injury – malice aforethought – mandatory death sentence and absence of extenuating circumstances (s.201(b)).
|
30 September 2020 |
|
|
30 September 2020 |
|
Circumstantial evidence upheld conviction; absence of proven drunkenness led to reinstatement of mandatory death sentence.
Criminal law — Murder — Circumstantial evidence; identification by abandoned property (shoes and borrowed bicycle); recording of verdict; sentencing — drunkenness not proven, mandatory death penalty reinstated.
|
30 September 2020 |
|
|
30 September 2020 |
|
|
30 September 2020 |
|
Circumstantial evidence upheld the murder conviction; lack of proof of drunkenness removed mitigation and reinstated the death sentence.
Criminal law – murder – circumstantial evidence sufficiency; inference from property/shoes found near body; verdict recording; drunkenness as extenuation; mandatory death sentence reinstated.
|
30 September 2020 |
|
A court may order security for costs (including a caveat) against a foreign-resident plaintiff at any stage; discretion was properly exercised.
Civil procedure – security for costs – application may be made at any stage – discretion to order security – factors to consider – foreign plaintiff owning local property – caveat/attachment as permissible security.
|
29 September 2020 |