|
Nukuu
|
Tarehe ya hukumu
|
| Disemba 2013 |
|
|
Criminal procedure – Assessors – duty of trial judge to sum-up evidence to assessors (s.278(1) CPA) – "may" construed in practice as mandatory for adequate summing-up on essential elements – failure or misdirection fatal – trial not with aid of assessors – revisional relief and retrial ordered under s.4(2) Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
|
13 Disemba 2013 |
|
Criminal procedure – trials with assessors – statutory requirement to sum up to assessors under s.278(1) – necessity for a recorded and comprehensive summing up; Summing up must include summary of facts, evidence, relevant law, and possible defences; Failure to properly sum up is fatal and renders the trial a nullity; Remedy: quash proceedings, set aside sentence and order retrial de novo with new assessors.
|
13 Disemba 2013 |
|
Appellate procedure – Extension of time – Where subordinate court exercises extended jurisdiction it is deemed High Court for Rule 47 and section 11(1) AJA – Applicants may apply to Court of Appeal after refusal by that subordinate court. Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Competence of application under appellate rules. Procedural law – Issues not properly raised or without leave will not be entertained.
|
11 Disemba 2013 |
|
Civil procedure — Preliminary objections — Must raise pure points of law apparent on pleadings; counsel submissions and extraneous documents are not evidence — Order XIV Rule 6 (admissions) not invoked — Order XXI Rules 7 & 8 require oral evidence in court under judge’s superintendence — Company registration and capacity to hold land are factual matters for trial.
|
10 Disemba 2013 |
|
Civil procedure — Extension of time to file revision — Rule 10 and Rule 65(4) — Alleged illegality and irregularity in lower court proceedings — Recording of compromise as decree while preliminary objections pending — Deputy Registrar’s jurisdiction — Prima facie assessment by Single Judge; substantive determination left to Full Court.
|
10 Disemba 2013 |
|
Procedure – Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 – Rule 48(1) mandatory requirement for notice of motion and affidavit; Mis‑pleading of procedure – filing chamber application instead of notice of motion; Mis-citation of rule – citing Rule 47 instead of Rule 10 for extension of time; Court’s suo motu power to raise procedural non‑compliance; Incompetence of application leads to striking out.
|
3 Disemba 2013 |
| Novemba 2013 |
|
|
Civil procedure – locus standi – a non-party to original suit lacks standing to apply for review; remedy is revision. Civil procedure – affidavits – jurat must include attesting officer's handwritten name; omission renders affidavit incurably defective and application incompetent. Civil procedure – failure to file court-ordered written submissions = failure to appear; court may determine objections in absence of defaulting party.
|
8 Novemba 2013 |
| Septemba 2013 |
|
|
Civil procedure — Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — Rule 48(1) — requirement that applications be by notice of motion supported by affidavit and cite the specific rule. Procedural competence — improper mode of application (chamber application vs notice of motion) — consequences of non-compliance. Rule citation — citing a general rule (Rule 47) instead of the specific rule for extension of time (Rule 10) — renders application incompetent.
|
10 Septemba 2013 |
|
Court of Appeal Rules 2009 – Rule 48(1) mandatory form of application; requirement for notice of motion supported by affidavit; necessity to cite specific rule; improper use of chamber application; citing wrong rule (Rule 47 instead of Rule 10) renders application incompetent and subject to striking out.
|
10 Septemba 2013 |