{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in finding that calling new witnesses during trial was not prejudicial to appellants","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Documents already served; witnesses commenting on existing documents; defence outline prepared"}
{"issue_text":"Whether allowing new witnesses violated appellants' constitutional right to fair trial","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Section 69(1), 70(1)(c), 86(3)(e) of Constitution"}
{"issue_text":"Whether trial magistrate's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Magistrate exercised discretion; found no prejudice"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellants, charged with perjury and fraud, opposed the State's application to call three new witnesses during trial whose statements had not been recorded before trial commenced. The magistrate allowed the application, finding no prejudice as the witnesses would only comment on documents already served on the appellants. The High Court dismissed the review application, and the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases