4 May 2026
The High Court held the victim's testimony was unusually convincing and was corroborated by admissible medical records; there was no suppression of material evidence and no misdirection by the trial court, therefore the conviction and 12-year imprisonment are safe; however the whipping term was reduced from 12 to 8 strokes as excessive.
5 Mar 2026
Appellate court allowed the appeal because the Sessions Court failed to apply the law correctly: it imposed personal liability without satisfying the legal threshold to displace separate legal personality, erred in inferring fraud from subsequent non-performance, failed to establish undue influence under s16, and awarded speculative damages; accordingly the Sessions Court judgment dated 29.09.2025 was set aside.
26 Feb 2026
Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case because (1) although the seized material was proven cannabis, there was reasonable doubt as to custody, control, ownership and knowledge given credible evidence of a third party's presence and access, conflicting narratives and lack of corroborative witnesses to rebut the defence; therefore the statutory presumption under s37(da)(vi) did not arise and the accused must be released without being called to enter defence.
9 Feb 2026
Defendant, having failed to give evidence and confronted with police and witness evidence and damage patterns, was held 100% negligent for making an unsafe U-turn into Plaintiff's lane; Plaintiff bore no contributory negligence; damages assessed item-by-item on medical and comparative authorities and future loss awarded on accepted income and multiplier.
6 Feb 2026
The plaintiff failed to prove delivery on a balance of probabilities because the delivery notes and internal records were largely unilateral and unacknowledged, plaintiff's witnesses made admissions undermining delivery, documentary inconsistencies remained unexplained, the burden of proof stayed with the plaintiff and no prima facie case existed to justify an adverse inference; accordingly the Sessions Court judgment could not safely stand and the appeal was allowed.
3 Feb 2026
The invoice and related documents were addressed to and admitted received by the first defendant, contemporaneous communications showed the first defendant instructed delivery to My Feta but required invoicing to Vquest, the first defendant never disputed the invoices or statements and failed to produce evidence supporting its agency claim or its storage counterclaim; under Evidence Act s114(g) an adverse inference was appropriate; therefore the plaintiff proved the debt and judgment is entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant and the counterclaim is dismissed.
23 Jan 2026
The accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) on a balance of probabilities by adducing a plausible rental/innocent agent explanation, but the prosecution nonetheless proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and physical control (mens rea possession) of the drugs through strong circumstantial evidence (remote, ID, vehicle registration, payment for parking); therefore the trafficking charge was reduced to possession under section 12(2) punishable under section 39A(2) and the accused was convicted of possession offences and…
23 Jan 2026
Court held the accused rebutted the statutory presumption of trafficking as to intent to traffic but failed to raise a reasonable doubt on possession with knowledge; therefore trafficking charge under section 39B(1)(a) was reduced to possession under section 12(2) DDA and the accused was convicted of possession of 217.95g methamphetamine and of cannabis (95.92g and 0.22g), with concurrent custodial sentences and mandatory whipping as imposed.
16 Jan 2026
Defendant, as bailee, was negligent and liable for the loss of plaintiff's hard drive; the post‑generated exclusion clause was not incorporated and in any event would be void under s29 Contracts Act 1950; plaintiff proved breach but not quantifiable loss, therefore awarded nominal and aggravated damages and interest.
5 Jan 2026
The Sessions Court’s factual findings—based on the Appellant’s admission of excavation, contemporaneous discovery of cable damage, absence of other excavators, admissible business records and witness evidence—supported an inference under res ipsa loquitur shifting the evidential burden to the Appellant which it failed to rebut; therefore the Appellant was liable and the damages proved on a balance of probabilities and appellate interference was unjustified.