|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2000 |
|
|
Whether a former director may validly instruct litigation in the company’s name; court stayed proceedings pending estate enquiries.
Company law – authority of directors to institute and continue litigation; retainer and agency of solicitors; personal claim of former director following sale; stay pending estate enquiries.
|
31 December 2000 |
|
The applicant cannot restrain the bank's sale where statutory notice provisions were complied with; damages, not injunction, are appropriate.
Registered Land Act – sections 60(2) and 68(1) – demand and default periods; effect of indulgence on notice; section 71(1) – sale by auction versus private contract; Land Registrar approval of reserve price; s71(3) remedies; injunction vs damages; protection of bona fide purchaser.
|
9 December 2000 |
|
Appellate court upheld conviction where reliable dock identification by a previously acquainted witness disproved the appellant’s alibi.
Criminal law – Armed robbery – Identification evidence and dock identification – Prior acquaintance and opportunity to observe – Identification parade not mandatory where witness knew accused – Alibi and burden of proof – Appellate deference to trial credibility findings.
|
7 December 2000 |
|
Interim injunction discharged where plaintiff failed to show a good arguable right and lender's security may be realised.
Registered Land Act s.68; interim/interlocutory injunctions; equitable discretion; lender's right to realise security; requirement of cogent evidence for injunction; inquiry as to damages requires proof of actual loss.
|
7 December 2000 |
|
Interlocutory injunction refused where plaintiff lacked possession, had no good arguable claim, and sought the injunction as sole substantive relief.
Interlocutory injunctions — American Cyanamid principles — possession requirement for nuisance/trespass — interim relief should not grant final remedy — joinder of party in possession.
|
1 December 2000 |
| November 2000 |
|
|
Detention pending removal unlawful; transfer and mutual assistance Acts don't permit removal of an unconvicted person.
Constitutional right to liberty – detention and release (s42(2)(e)) – distinction between release and bail; Transfer of Offenders Act 1991 – applies to convicted prisoners only; Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1991 – scope limited to witnesses/prisoner transfers; unlawful arrest – requirement to produce documentary proof of foreign request; extradition procedures and legality of removal; seized property – procedural requirements for recovery.
|
16 November 2000 |
|
Employer vicariously liable for bus driver's negligence; plaintiff awarded K100,000 reduced for 20% contributory negligence.
|
13 November 2000 |
|
Injunction refused: bank's demand notices and statutory sale powers complied with the Registered Land Act; damages and Registrar powers are adequate remedies.
Registered Land Act — sections 60(2), 68 and 71 — validity of demand notices and default; effect of indulgence on notice; mode of sale (auction v private contract); Registrar approval and consequences of irregularity; injunction vs damages.
|
10 November 2000 |
| October 2000 |
|
|
Section 148 gives third parties a direct right against insurers; policy exclusions for unlicensed drivers do not defeat third-party claims.
Road Traffic Act s.148 – Compulsory third-party insurance – Policy clauses excluding cover for unlicensed drivers ineffective against third parties – Insurer liable to third parties; insurer's remedy is recovery from insured.
|
29 October 2000 |
|
Whether the defendants' parallel convention violated the party constitution and should be restrained.
Political party constitutions—internal disputes—NEC authority versus presidential powers; validity of party conventions and venue changes; compliance with interlocutory injunctions; nullity of parallel conventions.
|
26 October 2000 |
|
Employer wholly liable for employee’s amputation due to unsafe, unguarded machinery and inadequate training.
Employer’s common law duty to provide safe plant/place/system of work; failure to guard antiquated machinery; prior similar accident and unimplemented labour office advice; on-the-job training insufficient; contributory negligence rejected.
|
24 October 2000 |
|
The applicant's interlocutory injunction to restrain sale dismissed for failure to show irreparable harm and due to loan defaults.
Interlocutory injunction — Registered Land Act — notice period — reserve price and Lands Registrar approval — variation by charge/loan agreement — irreparable harm — balance of convenience — clean hands — loan default — right of chargee to realize security
|
23 October 2000 |
|
Whether 'majority of the electorate' requires majority of registered voters; court held majority of votes cast suffices.
Constitutional interpretation — meaning of "majority of the electorate" in section 80(2) — majority means votes actually cast; relation to PPE Act s.96(5); admissibility/weight of legislative history in constitutional interpretation; electoral law — declaration of president.
|
22 October 2000 |
|
Default judgment set aside where defendant’s affidavit established a prima facie meritorious defence and counterclaim.
Civil procedure — Setting aside default judgment (Order 13 Rule 9(2)) — Requirement to show a meritorious defence on affidavit — Plaintiff’s opposing affidavit on merits disregarded — Alleged counterclaim for breach of contract (under‑supply, unpaid rebates, removal of pumps).
|
4 October 2000 |
| September 2000 |
|
|
|
12 September 2000 |
|
Court confirmed an 18‑month sentence and criticised delays in mandatory review under section 15, stressing timely transmission.
Criminal procedure — Review of subordinate court sentences — Sections 15, 26 and 362 — Confirmation of sentence — Duty to transmit records timeously — Consequences of delayed review.
|
8 September 2000 |
|
|
5 September 2000 |
| August 2000 |
|
|
Court reduced excessive theft sentence to three years, accepting serious illness as mitigation but not domestic hardship.
Criminal law — Sentencing — Excessive sentence on review; statutory maximum reserved for worst instances; monetary value and low maxima; serious illness as mitigation; domestic hardship not ordinarily mitigating.
|
31 August 2000 |
|
High Court reduced excessive sentences, emphasising prompt section 15 review and guilty-plea mitigation.
Criminal procedure — Review jurisdiction of High Court (Courts Act ss.25–26; Crim. Proc. & Ev. Code ss.15, 362) — Duty to transmit and confirm certain sentences — Timeous review required — Consequences of delay on detention — Sentencing on review — guilty plea mitigation — concerted action as aggravation
|
31 August 2000 |
|
|
28 August 2000 |
|
Whether reporting suspected theft to police amounts to procuring arrest and whether aggravated damages require specific pleading.
Civil liability — False imprisonment — Distinction between making a charge (procuring arrest) and giving information; burden of proof on claimant
Defamation — Pleading must match evidence
Damages — Special and aggravated damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved
|
24 August 2000 |
|
Interlocutory mandatory injunction refused where contract terms and facts are disputed and damages are adequate.
Contract for sale of goods – interlocutory mandatory injunction – high threshold: unusually strong case and high degree of assurance – disputed facts on affidavits – equity/clean hands – specific performance not appropriate – damages adequate.
|
24 August 2000 |
|
Turquand rule and apparent authority defeated an injunction where a family company failed to observe corporate formalities.
Company law — director’s apparent authority — Turquand rule — enforcement of security — interlocutory injunction — non‑compliance with Companies Act formalities.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Confirmed 42-month burglary sentence applying six-year starting point reduced for mitigation; registrar's delay in confirmation criticized.
Criminal law — Burglary sentencing — Six-year starting point — Aggravating and mitigating factors — Confirmation review — Registrar's duty and delays — s15(4) Criminal Procedure & Evidence Code — Remission under Prison Act.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Plea recording on multiple counts must be separate but curable; fines for felonies are generally inappropriate and default terms are capped by statute.
Criminal procedure – Plea procedure on multiple counts – joint plea curable under ss 353 and 362; Sentencing – fines for felonies generally inappropriate; default imprisonment limits – s.29 (1989 amendment) caps default term at three months for fines K100–K1000; Delay in review may preclude alteration of sentence.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Delay by court registry in setting down review matters can frustrate the High Court’s power to enhance subordinate court sentences.
Criminal procedure — High Court review powers (Courts Act ss.25–26; Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code ss.15, 362) — power to alter or increase subordinate court sentences — duty to transmit and set down records timeously — consequences of delay — review cannot convert acquittal into conviction.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
High Court confirmed 18‑month theft sentence, stressing review powers, timely confirmation, and limits after prisoner’s release.
Criminal procedure – Review and confirmation of subordinate court sentences (s.15 CP&E Code) – High Court powers under s.26 Courts Act and s.362 CP&E Code – timeliness of review and limits where prisoner released (s.15(4), s.107 Prison Act) – sentencing: value of property, guilty plea mitigation, first‑offender status.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Court set aside default judgment against a non-existent company; third party lacked standing under Order 12 but had interest under Practice Note 12/1/11.
Civil procedure – Order 12 Rules 6 and 8 – leave to give notice of intention to defend – limited to a defendant; Practice Note 12/1/11 – setting aside default judgments obtained against non-existent companies; locus standi of interested third parties; costs.
|
15 August 2000 |
|
Failure to give a full Turnbull warning was cured by strong fingerprint and caution-statement corroboration, so the appeal was dismissed.
Criminal law – visual identification – Turnbull warning required where identification is central; fingerprint and caution statement as independent corroboration; missing exhibits and safety of conviction.
|
14 August 2000 |
|
The State’s failure to bring the applicant before a court within 48 hours violated the Constitution; habeas corpus relief and bail were granted.
Constitutional law – Right to be brought before a court within 48 hours (s.42(2)(b)) – Habeas corpus – Continuous breach – No administrative excuse absent lawful limitation – Remand v. bail: balancing interest of justice and liberty.
|
8 August 2000 |
|
A short custodial sentence for a young first‑time offender in a non-violent shopbreaking was appropriate and confirmed.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Review of sentence – Breaking into a building and committing a felony – First offender and youth – Guilty plea as mitigation – Role of general deterrence and commonplaceness in sentencing.
|
3 August 2000 |
|
Sentence for breaking and entering with alleged theft reduced due to minimal trespass, overstated loss, and s15(4) detention safeguards.
Criminal law – breaking into building and committing felony (s311 Penal Code) – sentencing depends on extent of trespass, violence or damage, and value of property; evidentiary doubts can warrant reduction of sentence. Criminal procedure – s15(4) Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code – warrant of commitment treated as for statutory period pending High Court confirmation; magistrate must specify period; prison authorities must not detain beyond statutory period without High Court confirmation
|
3 August 2000 |
|
Court confirmed eight‑month sentence for theft by servant, stressing sentencing guidelines, breach of trust relevance, and timely review procedures.
Criminal law — theft by servant; sentencing — breach of trust; sentencing guidelines (Missiri); Prison Act s.107 rebate; review procedure and Registrar’s duty to list promptly.
|
3 August 2000 |
| July 2000 |
|
|
|
21 July 2000 |
|
|
21 July 2000 |
|
A fixed-term lease cannot be terminated by notice; forfeiture requires section 51 compliance, so the applicant's injunction is dissolved.
Registered Land Act – section 51 and section 57(1)(a) – fixed-term lease – termination by effluxion of time – forfeiture and re-entry clause – equitable owner’s relief – validity of notice to quit – interlocutory mandatory injunction.
|
14 July 2000 |
| June 2000 |
|
|
Unregistered but evidenced charge can create an equitable security; injunction discharged and plaintiff secured in equity.
Registered Land Act — unregistered charge and registration requirements; equitable charge by contract/part-performance; priority and notice; bona fide purchaser; injunction discharge; fraud allegation not established.
|
29 June 2000 |
|
|
23 June 2000 |
|
|
22 June 2000 |
|
|
22 June 2000 |
|
A magistrate may not impose maximum imprisonment for a misdemeanour without considering a fine and giving reasons.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Misdemeanour (trespass on burial place) – Section 129 Penal Code; when no penalty specified – Section 34 Penal Code – process of elimination between fine and imprisonment – excessive sentence – sentence reduced on review.
|
7 June 2000 |
|
Robbery sentence increased as manifestly inadequate; consecutive sentences set aside in favour of concurrent terms.
Sentencing — adequacy of sentence for robbery — aggravating factors: concerted action, multiple offences in short succession, harm to small businesses — mitigation: youth and first offence — concurrent versus consecutive sentences — sentence review by High Court.
|
7 June 2000 |
|
Default imprisonment exceeding statutory limits for fines is unlawful; escape from custody ordinarily merits custodial sentences.
Criminal law – Escape from lawful custody – Sentencing – Fines vs immediate custodial sentences – Default imprisonment limits under Penal Code s29(3) (amended) – Requirement under Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code s15(3) to await High Court confirmation before executing fines over K100 – mitigation (guilty plea, first-offender, injuries during arrest).
|
7 June 2000 |
|
Interim injunction refused where sale likely concluded at fall of hammer and damages were an adequate remedy.
Interlocutory injunctions – American Cyanamid principles – adequacy of damages – auction sale (fall of the hammer) – detinue/conversion v breach of contract – undertaking as to damages – specific performance unavailable for chattels.
|
5 June 2000 |
|
Expiry or subsequent registration of a design does not defeat a passing-off claim; interim injunction granted to protect goodwill.
Passing-off – distinct tort protecting goodwill – registered design expiry does not bar passing-off – subsequent registration by defendant not a defence – interlocutory injunction appropriate where triable issue and damages inadequate – preservation of status quo ante.
|
4 June 2000 |
|
Interlocutory injunction refused where damages are adequate and plaintiffs cannot provide a satisfactory undertaking in damages.
Interlocutory injunction — American Cyanamid principles — adequacy of damages — auction sale and transfer at fall of hammer — remedies in tort or contract (detinue/conversion vs. breach) — inability to give satisfactory undertaking as to damages — refusal of interim relief.
|
4 June 2000 |
|
A guilty plea taken without access to counsel or explanation of offence elements vitiated the conviction; appeal allowed.
Criminal procedure — Right to legal representation — Access to counsel — Validity of guilty plea — Requirement to reintroduce charge and explain elements — Procedural fairness — Setting aside conviction and sentence.
|
1 June 2000 |
|
Court limited conviction to admitted items and quashed sentence where supporting facts failed to prove value of stolen property.
Criminal law — guilty plea — requirement to put elements of offence to accused — equivocal plea — duty to test facts raised in caution statement — conviction limited to admitted items; sentencing — value of property must be proved for guideline-based sentence.
|
1 June 2000 |
| May 2000 |
|
|
Attachment before judgment requires good cause, intent to defeat or delay, and evidence of disposition or evasion.
Civil procedure — Order 8 (attachment/committal before judgment) — application requirements: writ issued; good cause of action; intention to defeat or delay claim or execution; disposition/evasion of property — anticipatory breach allows immediate suit — procedural safeguards for ex parte orders (short inter partes hearing, specify amount, undertakings).
|
19 May 2000 |
|
|
18 May 2000 |