Results.
85 documents found.
|
|
|
|
|
A Section 80 settlement registered before later prosecution bars prosecution until a court discharges the agreement.
-
Anti-Corruption Act s80 — settlement undertakings — timing of institution of criminal proceedings — immunity from prosecution — discharge of undertaking via Subordinate Court (s80(4), s86).
|
|
Judgment |
15 November 2023 |
|
Whether the prosecution proved that the accused, a public servant, fraudulently moved and sold government containers.
-
Criminal law — Theft by public servant — Elements: actus reus (taking/movement) and mens rea (fraudulent intent) — Proof that property belonged to Government — Evidential corroboration of witness testimony and transactions — Disposal of government assets and role of Ministry of Works and Supply.
|
|
Judgment |
23 March 2023 |
|
An s.80 Anti‑Corruption Commission undertaking cannot bar prosecution once criminal proceedings have commenced.
-
Criminal procedure — Section 80(3) Anti-Corruption Act — undertaking not to institute criminal proceedings — applies only before prosecution is commenced; autrefois acquit/double jeopardy — requires prior trial and acquittal — registered undertaking is not an acquittal; nolle prosequi distinguished; appeal allowed and matter remitted for rehearing.
|
|
Judgment |
10 November 2022 |
|
A s58 warrant under the Anti‑Corruption Act attracts criminal jurisdiction; the High Court may grant an out‑of‑time appeal without hearing the parties.
-
Anti‑Corruption Act s58 — seizure warrants; criminal jurisdiction; interplay with Criminal Procedure Code (s2, s321A, s322 proviso, s324); out‑of‑time appeals; High Court discretion; procedural misdirection by subordinate court.
|
|
Judgment |
30 August 2022 |
|
Documents like registration extracts and bills of lading need not be authenticated under the Act; claimant established pre‑offence interest, so forfeiture set aside.
-
Forfeiture of proceeds of crime — third‑party claims under ss.12(2) and 31(2) — proof of interest and timing of acquisition — Authentication of Documents Act — what constitutes a document requiring authentication — burden of proof on claimant.
|
|
Judgment |
28 July 2022 |
|
Plaintiff must specify defamatory words and correct inconsistent/unstated damage claims or face dismissal; exemplary/aggravated damages must be specifically pleaded.
-
Civil procedure — Order 14A preliminary issues; Defamation — requirement to plead words complained of (Order 18, Rule 7); Libel by schedule — leave required; Pleadings — embarrassing/inconsistent endorsements; Distinction between liquidated and unliquidated claims; Requirement to specifically plead exemplary and aggravated damages (Order 18, Rule 12).
|
|
Judgment |
27 May 2022 |
|
Warrant of seizure set aside because supporting affidavit was not filed and the instrument lacked any directive, amounting to abuse of process.
-
Anti-Corruption Act — seizure warrants — supporting affidavit must be filed (Order 5 r.11 Subordinate Court Rules) — warrant must contain directive to seize — material defect under Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act s35 — restriction notice v. warrant — abuse of process.
|
|
Judgment |
19 May 2022 |
|
Court upholds civil non-conviction forfeiture: vehicle used in offence was tainted and claimant lacked sufficient interest to resist forfeiture.
-
Forfeiture of proceeds of crime — non-conviction civil forfeiture under ss.29–31 FPOCA — jurisdiction and mode of commencement — definition of tainted property — claimant’s sufficient legal or equitable interest and onus under s.31(2).
|
|
Judgment |
30 November 2021 |
|
Alleged forged tax clearance and proceeds-of-crime suspicions not proved; all accused acquitted.
-
Criminal law — making and uttering false documents — tax clearance certificates — authority and procedural irregularities at revenue office — obtaining pecuniary advantage by false pretences — proceeds of crime — reasonable suspicion — burden of proof — acquittal.
|
|
Judgment |
9 September 2021 |
|
Bail pending appeal denied for lack of exceptional circumstances; separate stay of sale dismissed as appeal already operates as a stay.
-
Criminal procedure — bail pending appeal — exceptional circumstances required for bail; interlocutory relief — stay of sale of forfeited property — lodging criminal appeal operates as a stay; sentencing jurisdiction — contention regarding subordinate court's maximum sentence (not decided on merits).
|
|
Judgment |
21 April 2021 |
|
Whether a trial court may hear forfeiture applications pending appeal and whether an appellate court can order forfeiture.
-
Forfeiture of property; Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act s.11(4); Narcotic Drugs Act s.34; jurisdiction to order forfeiture; appellate court limits; third‑party claim in forfeiture proceedings.
|
|
Judgment |
25 February 2021 |
|
COVID-19 alone does not constitute exceptional circumstances to grant bail pending appeal without changed prospects or risk.
-
Criminal procedure — Bail pending appeal — discretionary remedy; exceptional circumstances required — COVID-19 alone insufficient unless it materially alters prospects of success or risk of serving substantial part of sentence; prior dismissal of bail not reopened where considerations unchanged.
|
|
Judgment |
16 April 2020 |
|
Subordinate Court lacked jurisdiction to grant forfeiture restraining order exceeding its civil monetary limit.
-
Jurisdiction — Subordinate Courts — Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act — civil proceedings — monetary limits — lack of jurisdiction renders proceedings a nullity.
|
|
Judgment |
9 September 2019 |
|
Odd coincidences can corroborate interested witnesses’ testimony and sustain a conviction for corrupt practices; sentence increased within jurisdiction.
-
Corroboration — odd coincidences as corroborative evidence; distinction between corroboration and circumstantial evidence; solicitation and constructive possession in bribery prosecutions; appellate interference with sentence within subordinate court’s jurisdiction.
|
|
Judgment |
23 October 2018 |
|
Whether one‑off terminal payments on resignation qualify as constitutional 'pension benefits' and trigger payroll retention under Article 189.
-
Constitutional law — definition of "pension benefit" (Art. 266) — terminal/one‑off payments — payroll retention (Art. 189) — purposive and literal interpretation — reading Constitution as a whole — retirees/retrenchees protection.
|
|
Judgment |
26 January 2018 |
|
|
|
Judgment |
26 January 2018 |
|
|
|
Judgment |
26 January 2018 |
|
Application to review seizure without warrant dismissed as time‑barred; extension required formal motion; criminal investigations not stayed by judicial review.
-
Judicial review — leave to apply — Order 53(4) three‑month time limit — extension of time requires formal motion and service — seizure under s.58 Anti‑Corruption Commission Act requires warrant — civil proceedings cannot be used to arrest criminal investigations.
|
|
Judgment |
8 December 2017 |
|
Service on the appellant via internal channels sufficed; malice may be inferred from lack of reasonable and probable cause.
-
Civil procedure — Service on State bodies — Section 13 State Proceedings Act and s.4(2) Anti‑Corruption Act — service on officers marked for attention and pigeonhole practice; Setting aside judgment — requirement of arguable defence and explanation for default; Malicious prosecution — elements (prosecution, termination in favour, absence of reasonable and probable cause, malice, damage); Malice may be inferred from want of reasonable and probable cause; Damages for mental anguish and defence costs recoverable.
|
|
Judgment |
16 October 2017 |
|
Section 49(2) imposes an evidential explanation burden but does not violate the right to silence or presumption of innocence.
-
Criminal law — Corruption offences — Presumption of innocence and right to silence — section 49(2) Anti‑Corruption Commission Act creates an evidential burden, not a compulsory duty to testify; appellate restraint in overturning trial credibility findings; sufficiency of documentary and investigative evidence (invoices, bank drafts, export docs).
|
|
Judgment |
6 June 2017 |
|
Regulations validly applied: properties were "recovered", unclaimed within three months, and consequently forfeited to the State.
-
Corrupt Practices (Disposal of Recovered Property) Regulations 1986 — validity and effect; definition of "recovered property"; vesting on expiry of three-month claim period; service and claim to Commission; judicial review of forfeiture.
|
|
Judgment |
29 December 2016 |
|
Article 118(2)(e) does not abolish procedural rules; sections 207 and 208 remain valid to protect fair trial and truth-finding.
-
Constitutional interpretation — Article 118(2)(e): undue regard to procedural technicalities — scope and application; Criminal Procedure Code — sections 207 & 208 — order of defence evidence; procedural rules vs technicalities; fair trial and truth-finding.
|
|
Judgment |
7 November 2016 |
|
Possession of large concealed cash may ground reasonable suspicion under s71; prosecution need not prove a predicate offence.
-
Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act s71 — 'may reasonably be suspected' standard — possession plus articulable facts — no need to prove predicate offence — s71(2) defence shifts evidentiary burden (balance of probabilities) — s78 indicates lower standard for factual issues
|
|
Judgment |
1 June 2015 |
|
A restriction notice expired by operation of law but remained effective against the applicant because the Commission failed to notify registries to discharge it.
-
Anti‑corruption law — restriction notices under s.24(1) and (3) of ACC Act 1996 — expiry by operation of law after twelve months — duty to notify third‑party registries of expiry — continuing effect of registered notices absent notification — misfeasance in public office requires bad faith/malice
|
|
Judgment |
17 June 2014 |
|
Restriction on company property was reversed where investigations targeted a shareholder personally, upholding corporate separateness.
-
Anti-Corruption Act s24(1) — Restriction notices — Requirement of on-going investigation but not specification of offence; corporate personality — company property distinct from shareholders; scope of investigations relevant to validity of restriction notice.
|
|
Judgment |
6 January 2014 |
|
Restriction notices require ongoing investigations but must target the correct legal person; courts may probe investigation focus.
-
Anti-Corruption Act s24(1) — Restriction Notices — Only an on-going investigation under Part IV is required, specification of particular offence unnecessary — Corporate personality — Distinction between company and shareholders — Court may scrutinize focus of investigations to ensure Restriction Notice targets correct legal person and to prevent fishing expeditions
|
|
Judgment |
5 January 2014 |
|
Whether post-qualification procurement action, supported by an insurer’s bond, constituted criminal theft or money laundering.
-
Criminal law — theft by public servant; procurement law — post-qualification evaluation and addendum requirements; evidential burden — intent to permanently deprive; money laundering dependent on predicate offence; issuing cheques — requirement of intent to defraud; adverse inference where prosecution withholds material documents (MTC minutes).
|
|
Judgment |
1 November 2012 |
|
Application for judicial review dismissed: presidentially constituted Task Force lawfully comprised seconded officers retaining statutory powers.
-
Judicial review — Order 53 — Illegality, ultra vires and presidential powers — Ad hoc Task Force constitutionality — Secondment of officers retains statutory powers — Validity of call‑outs and investigations.
|
|
Judgment |
9 February 2012 |
|
Court convicted the first and second accused for abuse of office and corrupt practices under the Anti‑Corruption Act.
-
Anti‑Corruption Act — abuse of office (s37(2)(a)) — corrupt practices (ss29(1),29(2)) — presumption under s49(2) — admissibility/weight of foreign invoices and bank transfer records — failure to follow public procurement/tender procedures — indirect benefit through third party (property acquisition).
|
|
Judgment |
2 March 2009 |
|
Whether a re-enacted statutory instrument may govern forfeiture of property seized under a repealed instrument.
-
Statutory interpretation — repeal and re-enactment of statutory instruments — whether re-enacted provisions retain force for earlier seizures; forfeiture of recovered property — vesting in the State once statutory conditions met; retrospective effect of legislation; Interpretation and General Provisions Act (sections on re-enactment and commencement).
|
|
Judgment |
14 May 2008 |
|
On review the High Court replaced a suspended sentence for grand corruption with nine months' custody and held forfeiture mandatory.
-
Criminal law — Review under sections 337–339 CPC — Sentencing for public‑office corruption — ‘Grand corruption’ and deterrent custodial sentences — Mandatory forfeiture under s.41 Anti‑Corruption Commission Act — Role of medical evidence in mitigation.
|
|
Judgment |
9 March 2008 |
|
Director-General may issue fresh restriction notices and direct rental payments pending corruption investigations, subject to refund if exonerated.
-
Anti-Corruption Commission Act s24(1) — Restriction notices; investigation (not necessarily prosecution) sufficient — Fresh notices after expiry valid — "Dispose of or otherwise deal with" includes managing property (collecting rent) — Certificate of title defeasible for fraud — High Court review powers under s24(5)/(7)
|
|
Judgment |
29 January 2008 |
|
A statutory requirement forcing an accused to give sworn evidence violates the constitutional protection against compulsion to give evidence.
-
Constitutional supremacy — statutory provision requiring sworn evidence (s.53(1) Corrupt Practices Act) conflicts with Art.20(7) protection against compulsion; no implied amendment of Constitution; Speaker's certificate and two-thirds majority required for constitutional amendment; absence renders conflicting provision invalid.
|
|
Judgment |
13 November 1984 |
|
A statutory rule forcing sworn testimony conflicts with the constitutional right not to be compelled to give evidence and is invalid.
-
Constitutional law — supremacy of the Constitution — no implied amendment — Speaker's certificate required for special Bills — absence renders conflicting statutory provision ultra vires; Criminal procedure — right against compulsion to give evidence (Art.20(7)) — s.53(1) Corrupt Practices Act invalid and severed
|
|
Judgment |
12 November 1984 |
|
The applicant’s prosecution under the Corrupt Practices Act does not contravene Article 20(4); procedural referral was properly before the High Court.
-
Criminal procedure — case stated under s.345 C.P.C. — not available before trial completion; Constitutional reference — Article 29(3) — proper referral despite procedural error; Corrupt Practices Act — retrospective criminalisation and Article 20(4) — does not create new offence; Definition of public officer — Ministers prosecutable under Penal Code via s.103A and s.94; Sentencing — minimum sentence issue noted but not decided
|
|
Judgment |
6 September 1984 |