Results.
88 documents found.
|
|
|
|
|
Out-of-time leave refused where procedural sequence under Order 13 was not followed and delay was inadequately explained.
-
Civil Procedure
-
—
Appeals — Extension of time for filing application for leave to appeal out of time — Requirement to obtain leave where both 14-day and further 21-day periods have expired — Order 13 Rule 3(2) and (3)
-
—
Rules of Court — Procedural compliance — Application incompetent where prescribed procedural sequence is not followed
|
|
Judgment |
11 June 2026 |
|
The accused person used public office to secure his sister's appointment—convicted of abuse, forgery and uttering; acquitted on one count.
-
Anti‑corruption law — Abuse of authority — Use of public office to obtain advantage for a relative — Anti‑Corruption Act s21(1)(b) and s21(2)
-
Criminal law
-
—
Forgery — Making a false document with intent to deceive — Penal Code s342/s347
-
—
Uttering false documents — Use, dealing with and inducing action upon false documents — Penal Code s4/s352
|
|
Judgment |
28 May 2026 |
|
Plaintiff succeeds in malicious prosecution claim; defamation claim fails for lack of proof of defamatory effect.
-
Civil
-
—
Malicious prosecution — Elements and proof — Termination in claimant's favour; absence of reasonable and probable cause; malice
-
—
Defamation (libel) — Publication and defamatory effect — Requirement to adduce evidence of impact on right‑thinking members of society
|
|
Judgment |
18 May 2026 |
|
Prosecution failed to prove the accused wilfully breached approval procedure for fuel imprests due to lack of procedural documentation.
-
Criminal law — Anti‑corruption — Wilful failure to follow laid down procedure — Proof of ingredients and onus of prosecution — Anti‑Corruption Act No.3 of 2012 s 34(2)(b), s 41
-
Public finance — Administrative procedure — Fuel imprest formula versus approval procedure — Cabinet Office Circular No.7 of 2012
-
Evidence — Documentary proof required to establish prescribed administrative procedures — Absence undermines criminal conviction
|
|
Judgment |
23 April 2026 |
|
Accused’s no‑case submission dismissed; prosecution proved prima facie corruption charge and accused placed on defence.
-
Criminal law — Corruption — Prima facie proof and corroboration under Anti‑Corruption Act s6(3) — Application of Japau/Galbraith tests
-
Criminal procedure — No‑case submission — Whether prosecution evidence is so weak or unreliable that the case must be stopped — Criminal Procedure Code s207
|
|
Judgment |
20 April 2026 |
|
Substitution of disciplinary charge valid if offences share same ingredients; excess leave forfeited; pension refund limited to employee contributions.
-
Disciplinary law — Acting Director-General — Proper disciplinary body — Substitution of charge — Natural justice — Accrued leave limits under conditions of service — Pension entitlements on dismissal
|
|
Judgment |
31 March 2026 |
|
Owner convicted for selling a restricted vehicle without ACC consent; alleged agent acquitted for lack of notice knowledge.
-
Anti‑corruption law — Section 61(1) and (5) — restriction notices as asset‑freezing tools — service and knowledge of notice — disposal without DG consent — burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt — third party/agent liability
|
|
Judgment |
26 February 2026 |
|
Accused acquitted on two corruption counts because prosecution failed to prove the alleged donor identified in the indictment.
-
Anti‑corruption — Corrupt practices with a private body — solicitation and receipt of cash gratification — digital forensic WhatsApp evidence and bank records — corroboration of an intermediary witness — failure to prove identity of alleged donor as charged.
|
|
Judgment |
2 February 2026 |
|
A constitutional petition cannot reopen issues already finally decided by the Supreme Court; the appellant lacked locus standi.
-
Constitutional petitions — Article 28(1)(a) — Procedure — Order 3 Rule 2 (High Court Rules) not a basis for final dismissal of constitutional petitions — inherent jurisdiction to determine locus standi, res judicata and abuse of process — forfeiture under Corrupt Practices (Disposal of Recovered Property) Regulations — effect of a prior Supreme Court determination.
|
|
Judgment |
28 January 2026 |
|
Late subpoena application refused for non-compliance with Rule 7's 14-day disclosure requirement; pre-defence conference ordered.
-
Criminal procedure — subpoena duces tecum (s.143 CPC) — Economic and Financial Crimes Court Rules — Rule 7(1) 14‑day disclosure deadline — judicial discretion to extend time — strict adherence to expedited procedure.
|
|
Judgment |
21 January 2026 |
|
A court interpreter convicted for soliciting and receiving a bribe to influence a judicial outcome.
-
Corrupt practices by public officer — solicitation and receipt of gratification — recorded telephone conversations and telecom transfer records as supporting evidence — gratification as inducement or reward — burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt — Judiciary as public body
|
|
Judgment |
19 November 2025 |
|
Removal of an accused does not require fresh DPP consent if charges against remaining accused remain unchanged.
-
Anti-Corruption Commission Act s64 — DPP consent to prosecute — Effect of discharge/removal of an accused on existing consent — No fresh consent required where substantive charges unchanged; pleas not rendered nullity.
|
|
Judgment |
17 November 2025 |
|
Court granted subpoenas for finance and health ministry records but dismissed unrelated document requests; filing extension deferred.
-
Criminal procedure — Subpoena duces tecum/ad testificandum — Section 143 CPC — requirement of relevance and sufficient description of documents — Economic and Financial Crimes Court Rules — variation of time to file defence bundle.
|
|
Judgment |
21 October 2025 |
|
Whether a director who recommended cancellation, but lacked approval authority, can be convicted for wilful procurement breaches.
-
Procurement law
-
—
Contract termination — Regulation 219 requires prior authorisation by approvals authority
-
—
Use of imprest — Mode of payment vs procurement method; running concurrent procurement processes unlawful
-
Anti‑Corruption — Wilful failure to comply with procedure — Proof beyond reasonable doubt; distinction between recommender and approvals authority
|
|
Judgment |
7 October 2025 |
|
Court found prima facie breaches of procurement law and put accused on their defence.
-
Criminal procedure — No case to answer (Japau test); Public procurement — requisition requirement; limited bidding — requirement to record reasons; contract termination — required approvals; solicitation and evaluation — mandatory methodology and post‑qualification records.
|
|
Judgment |
1 September 2025 |
|
Warrant of seizure under the Anti‑Corruption Act is temporary; prolonged unjustified freezing of funds requires discharge.
-
Anti‑corruption seizures — section 58 warrant as temporary investigative custody — section 75 does not import Forfeiture Act time limits — seizure cannot be indefinite — High Court jurisdiction where value exceeds Subordinate Court limits — remedy: discharge where unjustified prolonged retention.
|
|
Judgment |
13 June 2025 |
|
Court admitted secondary copies where originals were not found after an adequate search by a competent procurement witness.
-
Secondary evidence — admissibility of copies where originals unavailable — authentication by inspection — custody/possession of documents — standard of diligence in search (George Bienga).
|
|
Judgment |
8 June 2025 |
|
Non‑conviction forfeiture granted where unexplained disproportionate wealth and unregistered agreement failed to rebut reasonable suspicion.
-
Forfeiture — Non‑conviction civil forfeiture under Sections 29 and 31; Section 71 (possession suspected proceeds) as basis for reasonable suspicion; burden and standard of proof — balance of probabilities; evidential shift to interested party to prove legitimate source; unregistered land use agreement void under Lands and Deeds Registry Act; formal defects curable; property forfeited.
|
|
Judgment |
28 March 2025 |
|
Applicant must prove tainted property on a balance of probabilities; suspicion of foreign wrongdoing is insufficient.
-
Forfeiture — civil (non‑conviction) forfeiture — burden of proof on public prosecutor — 'tainted property' must be proved on balance of probabilities — mere reasonable suspicion or unparticularised foreign investigations insufficient — Section 29, 30(b), 31 and 34 Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act.
|
|
Judgment |
24 March 2025 |
|
Applicant’s failure to serve and publish the Notice of Application as ordered led to dismissal for non‑compliance with court directions.
-
Forfeiture proceedings — service of process — compliance with court directions — Notice of Application vs Notice of Hearing — requirement to seek leave for late service — Article 118(2)(e) and technicalities — dismissal for non‑compliance.
|
|
Judgment |
18 March 2025 |
|
Constitutional values alone do not found Constitutional Court jurisdiction; a specific constitutional question is required.
-
Constitutional jurisdiction — limits of Constitutional Court — national values and principles (Arts. 173, 216) not independently justiciable — interpretation vs. administrative/judicial review — requirement for specific constitutional question to invoke jurisdiction.
|
|
Judgment |
6 February 2025 |
|
Civil forfeiture is governed by civil procedure; Section 11 (conviction‑based) does not authorize State possession without court process; conditional stay granted.
-
Forfeiture law — distinction between conviction‑based and civil forfeiture; Section 11 interpretation; civil forfeiture governed by civil procedure — writs and possession; propriety of counsel deposing to affidavits; stay of execution pending appeal — prospects of success and irreparable harm.
|
|
Judgment |
22 January 2025 |
|
Court ordered non‑conviction forfeiture after finding reasonable suspicion of proceeds of crime and interested parties failed to rebut evidence.
-
Forfeiture (civil/non‑conviction) — Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act — reasonable suspicion standard — evidentiary burden shifts to interested party to prove lawful source — bank cash deposits, disproportionate assets v. declared income — scope of subject property (subdivision vs whole title) — government bonds, treasury bills and fixed deposits amenable to forfeiture when traceable to suspected proceeds.
|
|
Judgment |
20 December 2024 |
|
Court admitted a mixed-content bank credit file as evidence, holding proper foundation by the custodian suffices under Section 4.
-
Evidence — Documentary evidence — Admission of business records under Section 4 Evidence Act — Mixed originals and copies admissible with proper foundation — Custodian witness — George Bienga authority — Bank mandate file practice.
|
|
Judgment |
26 November 2024 |
|
Conviction for theft by public servant quashed for lack of evidence proving possession and intent.
-
Criminal Law — Theft by Public Servant — Proof of possession and fraudulent intention required — Prima facie case under Criminal Procedure Code ss 206–207 — Penal Code s 272
|
|
Judgment |
20 November 2024 |
|
Application to expunge affidavit passages and grant leave to appeal over refusal to allow examination of summoned witnesses in forfeiture proceedings.
-
Civil procedure — Affidavit evidence — Limits on affidavits (opinion, legal argument, speculation) — Expungement under Order 41 White Book; Forfeiture proceedings — oral evidence vs affidavit procedure — legitimate expectation to call witnesses; Leave to appeal — realistic prospects of success and questions of public importance.
|
|
Judgment |
4 November 2024 |
|
Civil non‑conviction forfeiture application alleging Simonga Farm was acquired with proceeds of corruption; key issues include tainted property, proof standard, and proprietary interests.
|
|
Judgment |
31 October 2024 |
|
Order 20 Rule 11 cannot be used to expand a judgment to grant substantive, unpleaded reliefs.
-
Slip rule (Order 20 r.11) — correction of clerical mistakes or accidental slips only — cannot be used to grant unpleaded substantive relief; pleadings define reliefs; court functus officio after judgment.
|
|
Judgment |
30 October 2024 |
|
Leave granted because non‑conviction forfeiture issues raise points of law of public importance.
-
Non‑conviction asset forfeiture — admissibility of evidence from criminal investigations in civil forfeiture — burden of proof under s33 FPOCA — individual culpability — leave to appeal under s13.
|
|
Judgment |
7 October 2024 |
|
A subordinate court cannot state a case under section 341 during an ongoing trial; SI No.10/2024 does not oust jurisdiction.
-
Criminal procedure — Section 341 CPC — Case stated may only be made after hearing and determination — Timing of case-stated procedure — Statutory Instrument No.10/2024 Rule 3 — Effluxion of time does not automatically oust subordinate court jurisdiction — Frivolous/dilatory applications.
|
|
Judgment |
6 October 2024 |
|
High Court dismissed application for want of jurisdiction to challenge a subordinate court's warrant of seizure.
-
Jurisdiction — challenge to warrant of seizure issued by Subordinate Court — High Court’s (Economic and Financial Crimes Division) jurisdiction is broad but not limitless — court orders subsist until set aside by issuing court — absence of challenge in issuing court bars High Court determination — matter dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
|
|
Judgment |
30 September 2024 |
|
Non-conviction forfeiture allowed where applicant proves reasonable suspicion from income–asset disparity; interested party failed to rebut on balance of probabilities.
-
Non-conviction forfeiture — admissibility of electronic bank records and valuation reports — reasonable suspicion based on unexplained wealth/income-asset disparity — burden and standard of proof in forfeiture proceedings — Section 31(2) interest defence — investigating officer evidence on financial analysis.
|
|
Judgment |
27 September 2024 |
|
The court dismissed the applicants' jurisdictional challenge as res judicata and warned against unlawful access to court records.
-
Jurisdiction — Economic and Financial Crimes Court; transfer of matter — abatement by effluxion of time; res judicata and abuse of process; access to court records — Section 50 Subordinate Courts Act.
|
|
Judgment |
26 September 2024 |
|
Court extended the five‑month trial limit by 45 days under Rule 3(2) and refused a constitutional referral; trial to continue.
-
Criminal procedure — Statutory time limits (S.I
-
No.10/2024 Rule 3) — Commencement and computation of five‑month limit — Extension under Rule 3(2) — Jurisdiction not automatically lost on expiry — Constitutional reference unnecessary
|
|
Judgment |
3 September 2024 |
|
Court ordered civil forfeiture of assets acquired from contracts obtained by false pretences; interested parties failed to rebut taint.
-
Forfeiture of proceeds of crime — Non-conviction forfeiture — jurisdiction under Sections 29, 31, 71 FPOCA — civil standard (balance of probabilities) — procurement misrepresentation — Key Personnel requirement — false pretences (Penal Code s309) — proceeds of crime — burden shift and unexplained wealth — forfeiture and costs.
|
|
Judgment |
21 August 2024 |
|
Court granted the State leave to amend prosecution witness and document lists under Rule 5(6), finding no fatal prejudice to the defence.
-
Criminal procedure — Economic and Financial Crimes Court Rules 2024 — Rule 5(6) — Amendment of prosecution witness and document lists — Disclosure obligations — Prejudice to defence — Leave to amend.
|
|
Judgment |
21 August 2024 |
|
Court convicted the accused of possessing assets suspected as proceeds of crime and of obtaining subsistence allowances by false pretences.
-
Forfeiture of proceeds of crime — possession of property reasonably suspected of being proceeds — reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts and asset/income disparity; evidential burden on accused who testifies; exclusion of defence material for non‑compliance with SI No.10/2024 disclosure rules; false pretences for subsistence allowances proven by absence of corroborating activity reports and phone-location evidence.
|
|
Judgment |
26 July 2024 |
|
A statutory anti‑corruption agency may be a "public prosecutor" and taint of property must be decided on full evidence, not interlocutory review.
-
Forfeiture law — public prosecutor — statutory anti‑corruption agency as prosecutor; Forfeiture proceedings — tainted property — merits issue not for interlocutory determination; Civil forfeiture — non‑conviction based — parallel to criminal proceedings; Abuse of process — forum shopping — not established by concurrent civil and criminal actions; Costs — discretionary; parties to bear own costs due to novel issues.
|
|
Judgment |
22 July 2024 |
|
Failure to serve the person with a fresh third‑party Restriction Notice renders it void; warrant of seizure lawful and ACC may investigate PTT.
-
Anti‑corruption investigations — Section 61 third‑party restriction notices — service requirements — validity; Distinction between Restriction Notice and Warrant of Seizure — custody vs status quo; ACC powers under s.6(1)(b) to investigate offences under other written laws including Property Transfer Tax; judicial restraint in civil proceedings that would arrest ongoing criminal investigations.
|
|
Judgment |
21 June 2024 |
|
Civil NCB forfeiture requires statutory notice and proof linking property to crime; criminal cautions demand voluntariness safeguards.
-
Forfeiture of proceeds of crime — Non-conviction (in rem) forfeiture — FPOCA notice requirements (s30) — Service out of jurisdiction vs statutory notice — Admissibility of warn and caution statements obtained in criminal investigations in civil forfeiture — Voluntariness and probative weight — Two-stage test for tainted property — Standard of proof: balance of probabilities.
|
|
Judgment |
11 June 2024 |
|
Failure to give statutorily required notice and lack of evidence connecting property to crime invalidated non-conviction forfeiture.
-
Forfeiture of proceeds of crime — Non-conviction forfeiture — Mandatory notice under s30 — "Tainted property" definition and burden on balance of probabilities — Inadmissibility/insufficiency of intelligence evidence — Improper focus on financial capacity.
|
|
Judgment |
11 June 2024 |
|
Court granted non‑conviction forfeiture of assets as proceeds of crime and declared victim's entitlement to restitution from disposal proceeds.
-
Non-conviction forfeiture; Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act — tainted property and proceeds of crime; civil standard (balance of probabilities) in forfeiture proceedings; victim's declaration of interest and restitution; recognition of equitable/beneficial interest where legal title in third party.
|
|
Judgment |
15 May 2024 |
|
A witness statement does not replace oral examination in chief; it is a disclosure tool and may assist cross-examination.
-
Criminal procedure — witness statements — not standalone evidence — examination-in-chief under Criminal Procedure Code remains required — Statutory Instrument No.10 of 2024 cannot displace primary legislation — disclosure and cross-examination — Simon Miyoba v The People.
|
|
Judgment |
15 May 2024 |
|
Applicant failed to show fresh evidence or compliance with mandatory Section 30(a) service requirements; review application dismissed.
-
Procedure — Review of own judgment under Order XXXIX Rule 1 — Fresh evidence test (materiality, effect, existence before decision, discovery after decision, due diligence) — Mandatory service requirements under Section 30(a) Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act — Originating notice must be served with affidavit and skeleton arguments.
|
|
Judgment |
10 May 2024 |
|
Public officers convicted for theft after audit, torn exhibit register page, and unexplained shortage of seized funds.
-
Criminal Law — Theft by Public Servant — Misappropriation of cash exhibits deposited in custody — Penal Code s 277
-
Evidence
-
—
Exhibit registers and ACC Form 12 — Admissibility and weight of register entries and audit reports
-
—
Tampered record (ripped page) — Adverse inference and circumstantial proof of intent to permanently deprive
|
|
Judgment |
8 May 2024 |
|
Court held EFCC Division rules apply to pending cases and dismissed the jurisdictional challenge as unmeritorious.
-
Criminal procedure — jurisdiction of Economic and Financial Crimes Division — SI No.10/2024 (E&F Crimes Rules) — Rule 17 retrospective application to pending proceedings — cause-listing by National Prosecution Authority — disclosure and fair trial — procedural challenge inappropriate to delay proceedings.
|
|
Judgment |
3 May 2024 |
|
Whether non‑conviction civil forfeiture is warranted where property value far exceeds the proprietor's known income.
-
Non‑conviction forfeiture; tainted property and proceeds of crime; burden shifting to interested party under s.31(2) FPOCA; admissibility/curability of affidavit/form defects; compatibility with constitutional property rights (Article 16).
|
|
Judgment |
16 April 2024 |
|
Appellants convicted for theft by fraudulent conversion; immunity rejected; statutory judgment set aside; interest to be paid to Treasury.
-
Criminal law — Theft by public servant — Theft may be by taking or by fraudulent conversion — Particulars of charge sufficient; conversion established. Prosecutorial misconduct — Alleged witness tampering not substantiated. Statutory immunity — Sections 90 & 10 Postal Services Act inapplicable where acts not in good faith and lacking required approvals. Directors' liability — Directors may be criminally liable where they direct the mind of a corporate body. Section 171(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Code — Statutory judgment unsuitable where principal funds were paid; interest to be determined and remitted to Treasury
|
|
Judgment |
15 March 2024 |
|
Court refused a rejoinder and cross-examination, finding affidavit evidence sufficient for an in rem forfeiture hearing.
-
Forfeiture in rem — procedure — clarifying/rejoinder affidavits — reply/rejoinder generally reserved for applicant; cross-examination of affidavit deponents — discretionary and exceptional; test: insufficiency of affidavit evidence, existence of contentious factual issues, and good and convincing reasons to subpoena; Section 31(2) burden for interested parties to prove legitimate interest.
|
|
Judgment |
7 March 2024 |
|
Court acquitted the Project Manager of abuse of office but convicted the Site Engineer and contractor for corrupt gratification.
-
Abuse of office; corrupt practices (receipt and giving of gratification); evidential value of bank records and deposit slips; procurement/payment authorisation and thresholds; burden and standard of proof.
|
|
Judgment |
1 March 2024 |