Results.
18 judgments found.
|
|
|
| May 2026 |
|
|
Employer must afford accused employees chance to confront accusers; compensation uses wage at dismissal, not a 'boosted' rate.
-
Employment Law
-
—
Disciplinary Proceedings — Right to confront accusers — Employer duty to afford opportunity to cross‑examine (Employment Act ss 57, 61(2))
-
—
Unfair Dismissal — Assessment of compensation — "Wage" means wage at time of dismissal; boosting is an exception
-
Civil Procedure — Execution pending appeal — Wrongful execution where stay conditions met — Refund of sheriff fees
|
29 May 2026 |
|
|
29 May 2026 |
|
No valid presidential appointment or reinstatement was proved; unsigned communications do not constitute lawful presidential decisions.
-
Constitutional Law
-
—
Administrative Justice — Requirement to give written reasons and lawful administrative action — Constitution s43
-
—
Chiefs Appointments and Removals — Presidential decisions must be in writing under signature — Constitution s90; Chiefs Act ss4,11,12
|
29 May 2026 |
|
Whether the respondent lost jurisdiction by deciding after statutory time limits and whether its rules were ultra vires.
-
Administrative law — Rule‑making and ultra vires — Division of rule‑making powers between Society and Disciplinary Committee — Legal Education and Legal Practitioners Act ss 73, 94
-
Disciplinary procedure — Time limits and jurisdiction — Whether Disciplinary Committee loses jurisdiction after expiry of statutory 90/120 days — LELPA s 95
|
21 May 2026 |
|
Rules jointly promulgated by the Society and Committee were ultra vires; committee lost jurisdiction after statutory time limit expired.
-
Administrative Law — Delegated Legislation and Disciplinary Procedure — Validity of rules made jointly by Society and Disciplinary Committee — Whether rules are ultra vires and require gazetting/laying before Parliament — LELPA ss 73, 94, 95; Constitution s58; General Interpretation Act s17
|
21 May 2026 |
|
|
20 May 2026 |
|
Employer held vicariously liable for senior employees' sexual harassment; damages reduced for claimant’s contributory factors.
-
Employment law — Vicarious liability — Sexual harassment by senior employees — Employer’s duty to take reasonable preventive measures
-
Civil damages — Assessment of damages for sexual assault — Reduction where claimant’s conduct and evidentiary gaps affect quantum
|
11 May 2026 |
| April 2026 |
|
|
Use of the wrong prescribed notice form nullified the appeal; absence of a memorandum meant no competent appeal existed.
-
Civil procedure
-
—
Appeals from subordinate court to High Court — Notice of appeal — Prescribed Form 26 mandatory; use of Supreme Court of Appeal form invalidates appeal
-
—
Record of appeal — Memorandum of appeal (grounds) integral to record of appeal; absence means no appeal
-
—
Procedural irregularity — Fundamental defects in prescribed form cannot be cured by inherent jurisdiction or Order 2 relief
|
14 April 2026 |
|
Statutory forum under the Waterworks Act requires transfer; injunctive relief does not confer High Court jurisdiction.
-
Civil procedure
-
—
Jurisdiction — Transfer to Resident Magistrate’s Court under Section 13 Waterworks Act
-
—
Interim relief — Injunctions do not confer High Court jurisdiction — Courts Act s39(2)(b)
-
Subordinate courts — Interlocutory powers — Order 12 Rule 7 consistent with s39 and not an injunction
|
13 April 2026 |
|
Section 19 immunity under the Environmental Management Act 2017 extends to duly authorised private licence-holders; claimants must prove bad faith.
-
Environmental law — Statutory immunity — Whether s.19 of the Environmental Management Act 2017 extends to private licence-holders
-
Statutory interpretation — Ejusdem generis and marginal notes — Whether ejusdem generis restricts the scope of s.19 of the Act
|
9 April 2026 |
| February 2026 |
|
|
|
27 February 2026 |
|
Judicial review application dismissed for being filed out of time; respondent affidavit held incurably defective; referral refused.
-
Administrative law — Judicial review — Time limits — Promptness and three‑month rule under Order 19 Rule 20(5)-(6) — Extension only for good reason
-
Civil procedure — Affidavits — Jurat defects — Incurable inconsistent/omitted dates render affidavit ineffectual; not curable under Order 18 r18-19 and Oaths, Affirmations and Declarations Act s10
-
Procedure — Constitutional certification — No proceeding to refer to Chief Justice under Courts Act s9
|
24 February 2026 |
|
|
20 February 2026 |
|
An Ombudsman may investigate anonymous whistle‑blower complaints and lawfully construe statutory qualification requirements in recruitment.
-
Ombudsman jurisdiction — anonymous complaints and whistle‑blower protection (s12A); maladministration in public recruitment; statutory interpretation of qualifications (s6(5) Corrupt Practices Act); separation of powers and administrative oversight.
|
16 February 2026 |
|
Whether the Chief Secretary lawfully seconded senior military officers — judicial review, s43 fairness and Public Service Act deployment rules.
-
Judicial review — amenability of executive actions; administrative justice — s43 right to lawful and procedurally fair administrative action and reasons; ultra vires and Wednesbury unreasonableness — Public Service Act (s10) deployment requirements; separation of powers — High Court jurisdiction under s108(2); duty of candour in judicial review.
|
12 February 2026 |
| January 2026 |
|
|
A stay filed under incorrect rules is incompetent; election urgency does not excuse procedural non‑compliance.
-
Civil Procedure
-
—
Stay/Suspension of Judgment — Proper procedural basis and applicable rules — Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules Order 28 Rules 48–50 — Supreme Court Rules inapplicable to High Court proceedings
-
—
Inherent Jurisdiction — Invocation where specific statutory procedure exists — Not to be used in lieu of prescribed rules without solid cause
-
—
Curative Powers — Order 2 Rule 2/3 — Irregularities may be cured but good cause required; urgency alone insufficient
|
29 January 2026 |
|
High Court remitted a medical disciplinary case for fresh inquiry due to an incomplete and inadequate record.
-
Medical disciplinary proceedings — statutory requirement to record proceedings and reasons (s48(5) Medical Practitioners and Dentists Act) — incomplete/inconsistent record — adequacy of minutes vs verbatim record — appellate review limited by deficient record — referral for fresh inquiry — issues of informed consent, negligence and gross incompetence considered but not determined on merits.
|
29 January 2026 |
|
|
8 January 2026 |