Results.
6 judgments found.
|
|
|
| December 2003 |
|
|
Disobedience of an injunction is civil contempt and does not disqualify an MP under s51(2)(c) absent a criminal conviction.
-
Contempt of court — civil contempt v criminal contempt — disobedience of injunction — qualification for Parliament under s51(2)(c) — moral turpitude and dishonesty — common law approach where no statutory contempt regime exists
|
22 December 2003 |
| October 2003 |
|
|
Ex parte injunctions require full, frank disclosure; misrepresentation disentitles applicant to stay of discharge.
-
Civil procedure — Ex parte injunctions — Duty of full and frank disclosure — Misrepresentation of alternative accommodation — Stay of discharge governed by ex parte principles, not Marriage Act or Married Women’s Property Act.
|
7 October 2003 |
| August 2003 |
|
|
Whether a government bureau lacking legal personality can be sued and the correct procedure to challenge restriction notices.
-
Constitutional/administrative law — statutory bodies — legal personality — Anti‑Corruption Bureau lacks capacity to sue or be sued; suits should be against Attorney General or Director; procedure under s.23(5)-(6) — Notice of Motion appropriate; natural justice — notice given; costs against non‑suable body untenable.
|
20 August 2003 |
| April 2003 |
|
|
Speaker is not the proper defendant in judicial review of parliamentary acts; Attorney General is, and injunctions against Government are prohibited.
-
Administrative law — Judicial review of parliamentary decision — Speaker not proper party; Attorney General proper respondent — Civil Procedure (Suits by or against Government) Act requires notice and bars injunctions against Government — procedural defect of wrong party may defeat interlocutory relief — right to review Parliamentary compliance with natural justice
|
27 April 2003 |
|
Seizure and freezing orders under CPA s32(5) are civil preservatory measures; ex parte relief is permissible with later inter partes safeguards.
-
Corrupt Practices Act s32(5) — seizure and freezing orders; civil ex parte applications; duty of full and frank disclosure; preservation of assets pending trial; property rights and constitutional limitation; tracing/segregation of assets; unclean hands; no statutory receivership under CPA.
|
16 April 2003 |
| March 2003 |
|
|
Appellant's murder conviction quashed where prosecution failed to prove malice aforethought or participation in the fatal mob attack.
-
Criminal law — Murder — Malice aforethought — Requirement to prove intention to kill or cause grievous harm; Criminal law — Joint enterprise — Liability where accused participated in common purpose; Evidence — Dying declaration — Reliability examined against postmortem findings; Criminal procedure — Jury directions — Provocation and self‑defence not necessary on these facts; Conviction quashed for insufficient evidence
|
6 March 2003 |