The two appellants were each charged with one count of fraud as defined in s 36 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23]. They both pleaded not guilty. After a trial, they were convicted. They were each sentenced to five years imprisonment of which one year was suspended on conditions of good behaviour and a further two years were suspended on condition that they, each, make restitution in the sum of US$20 000.00 towards the complainant. They now appeal against both conviction and sentence. More
The appellants were charged with and convicted of contravening s3(3) of the Gazetted Land (Consequential Provisions) Act [Cap 20:28]. They were both fined and had an ejectment order issued against them together with all those who claimed occupation through them. More
In August, 2011, the Appellant was charged with violating sub sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 of Section A and sub Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Section B of the (IT) User Agreement which provided that company technologies were provided and reserved for the company’s business only in that he sent insulting personal messages to his subordinate; one Neverrest Simango.
The second charge was for contravening the Tobacco Industry Code of Conduct in that he displayed indiscipline, violence and other related offences by using insulting or abusive language and the third charge was for dishonest, theft, fraud... More
This is an application for leave to appeal a judgment of this Court to the Supreme Court. The application is opposed. Judgment was granted by this Court on 4 May 2012. The applicant filed its notice of appeal to the Supreme Court on 26 May 2012. The applicant then filed its Heads of Argument on 20 September 2012. The respondent has submitted that the applicant ought to have filed its heads within fourteen days. This is what is contemplated by Rule 19 of the Rules of this Court Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006. The respondent submitted that in view of... More
The applicant was convicted of theft of a motor vehicle as defined in s 113 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23] and was duly sentenced. The applicant noted an appeal against the decision of the court a quo and has approached this court with an application for bail pending appeal. The respondent in opposition of the application raised points in limine. The court moved for address on merit after both the applicant and respondent counsel had submitted oral argument against and for upholding of points in limine respectively in their documents filed of record and from... More
Plaintiff issued summons claiming the return of a tractor, an International 444 model, as well as consequential damages as well as costs of suit. In his declaration the plaintiff claims that in July 2005, he had borrowed defendant’s tractor trailer in order to carry out certain work at his farm. Later defendant came and asked to use the plaintiff’s trailer to tow his trailer back to his farm. He did not return the tractor despite demand. More
The plaintiff seeks compensation in the sum of US$700-00 for the repairs he carried out on the leased premises together with loss of business in the sum of US$45 793-00 from the defendant and costs of suit. The defendant counterclaimed for arrear rentals of US$2 254-00, holding over damages calculated from 1 January 2010 to the date of eviction, operational costs in the sum of US$2 283-47, interest on these sums at the prescribed rate, eviction and costs on the higher scale. More
