Isaac Ngoma v People (Appeal No. 98 of 1985) [1987] ZMSC 99 (23 February 1987)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA .. HOLDEN AT LUSAKA \ . J l I ' j i .... '. · ·: .· ::. ·~:< :,::dfr\'.~]~';1,:r;,~f ~ardner, J. S.,· del1vtrtd th•cJudgaent<IJf the court~ ' · , ·< ;:;: · ··•· • _, ·-· •. -~- • . .. f. •_i.:·.·:,. ··.,_'.\'.;~;).:L:/°?/(}{/./?};;;,}://ft(_:::\)t;\L/:. ,· ,n··.•t.ti.1W•'-)f/,·-'ttc1F·'l!cr~:!:ll1i,,.,ijJ",•>c1s1,~•.;,: The, appel l~nt.,.~•s· c~n~.l~~~~:.~fi ~g~[~,~~t.~~jtR~A'~:!~~~:t::;l.);,:r:.::- .. ,. , ,.,·, ,.,,,, , .... ;,,,·,l·•,.-,,.fff.,. ,. . particulars being~'lhat he, together with other co-accused,. on ·the 6th of October, 1983; at Ndola, jointly and 'whilst acting together,. robbed Francis Musonda Katai Of hl_s _moto~;,;_~Jit<:Ie/tifJ~1;f;;l,$1l.f,: ·. 'i'-"~,:·.--., _;'•:r~,:,~·:,r·•' -,.·; \, ··'. . .. and other property valued in total' at K10, 930,8511 ·.and:at'time·of '· ··1.,•, . .- :,r· ]·', -'. ;· ·-,. \ i -.~,-:-,---.:.i,.-• "'!-~~· I' l '.~'1 •' ' . _., .... • . •·- .. _ ·• • , I . ' \ \ ' ' ' such robbery did use actual viol.enc,.,c: ,; .. ·· .•i'.;:;tf:\i\\j~,}f:::~\:}.;.',;• .... The·•f~tts of the case were that there·was •an'.aggravated· "9f>ber,v in which the:complainant had the items lllfl!l~ioned. ip; t~~: ~h~~ge, $tplen. . from hilil, and approximately six days later th~,:~!t~~yJs:~~p'\s~J,stolen · in the robbery together with other items referred to·1n:the charge· were found ln a house said to be occupied by the •PP!i!llant. · _;c,..•i/-\f,~.':fr,\:~ . .,· · ' Mr. Mwiinga the learned Director Q(Publi1?,fr<1~ecutions.\:, indicated to this court that the State 1d "~-f~p,'e~d,'}~,XcP.~r~fti,pn •.. · for aggravated robbery and Mr. Kayukwa argued a number oC grounds · · · of appeal on behalf of the 11ppe11aL,. there was evidence from the appellant's _b~oth~r .t.~~t,'t,~e, .hous! wher~., the stolen goods were found belonged to him and at;.the televan:t t,imci . · . ·. In particular i1..'~as ~rgaed that : , t, ·:.: :,~·i'.-;' -;:?·•~;~0•"..,_\<-1;·,. !~ .;a. ,'_~,>t· _: ·_,,,-.,. -, ~,,.,•, .. ~ •-•" . ~~M•••~•• --• ',,'->r4s,.',,,_,., ...,, ·, ~ •-, ·1 t,• · ' I . ' ' ' . . . . . . ' ' . . ,. '; . ; , , --. .. • "! • . , , , ,. .., ·: • .•f' . . 'r:-. ,. •· •·. ,,_., .• , . , , . .-.-.••. ·,, '··: • ' . ,,.,_, • ' . ·•·• '~ f/.'·i'•J•,/•. ,_, ,·. ,,-' r•••,4: ' ! " J, ,' --~---i ...... ~-- '._,,_ .~J•~':,;,:• :,•.i•l.•,···, ,·,.,.:~•,;.\,'I_ · ','',:,(.,·,•;/1~:- ·\_;•;· ."-~ fF:5 .. : t( ·,. :12,:t,i;~? . : ,{~~.-'.;,;({,/_ :;/!if, rr.~t;1i311t\,t: ' . . . · .. he·· had allowed the·appeUant and,an~ther·!lla.n called Moses,Changall'. J:ilk>,1:;: ., to occupy the ijouse. There was furt.her evidence from pl"osec~i.!>i'f witnesses that ·when the police approached ,the house,~ere the .~t&fen)"' goods were found the appellant was .not there.and .thatl· a, man, who.w~S,'':,'-,~ . ~ ·_ '. • ···f :-: }-:.;-~ (.' ,; not identified as the appellarrt.;s1·a1l,JWA)'., · ... · , . ;,,µr,::: t,i,,1,;,, tfr/;1(':k"'"f. •· '._. :, : .... • '• . • .. ,I' ;,:\.•,~~;,;;-j:• I.:,,:::'::{'..-.);'.·, :: · \ ••:;':\\~•::~r', ··'.' · ln the course of his jlld~nt~tt•11med:t~lil'}jtcl~e'. ,;id Moses Changala is either a fictitious person or, par;t: Q.t'\th&;;g,,ig<who raided the residence of the three 1pr1,sts. and -ro~~~ .th~ of.. j:ft~ .. · . , various items of property, in the r;ompany.·of the,~e~o~cfaccu~.e(lpe~son '· (the appellant). It was argued that; ln v1e,(,.9f i~e. Jf~: that ,thE!:, . . · learned trial judge was prepared to accept,;J~~t, Ji;,w~~~pos,s~)le that Moses Changala could have beel) .responsible for tht;~r,~ience Qf:t~e • . ·. stolen goods in the house;) itt~rir;Jiijiilgt,;;, ~vl<;!e,ri~;: t~,,'.~/iQW :that.the· ' ' . appellant and Moses Changala acted,ln c<>nc11~{ :the ij.~ll~,C?f:t,he , - . · appellant was not the only reasonable 1nfererice,Jhat.,¢ou~c:f'~tt,,~r,~~:::r:rom,,~ the· presence of the· stolen articles. frli,the llpus~~< Pn heariog thJi · · · ..• • · argument the learned ,Dire<;:tor c,f !>µijU¢ . P.,rQ~!•~~J.19,:is/veryzp,;oµ,.~f~Y,;,,;"·-•~•:" indicated that the .. st~t,,.:,~,fc:f;,,?Jtt,,5:.~~et~:':Jttr-1rlitl;?"·qtJ,e}i '.c, , ·,,,; \). ,, , iC:;i <.'.h': r:· .. appellant for receivlng stolen· prop-,~ •. ·\.' . . ,:;'· , , .!,' .. ,, ... ,,., .,, 1::.t'.:\/ r.:\~~A·.:1r~•.ii\<·-~_.i\_·:·:·!:::_.r:t:~{1/t)<t/·-.. _:·t: · we ·agfee :w1 thi bothi cou~selctJi~ti i tt~·~ttwri,t1~~~:l~Ji~~1,b.~f,~l: : ·•• ... learned trial: jUdg• that· Moses Charigala 'co1,114r pes,lbJy b!t;,responst~le · · for the presence of the stolen· goods fri ttii1~or.-se:' the:'gUiJ't, o,f{the .' ' ap,ellant was not the only reasonable'infe~i,c~' th!lt ·cpuld{be:tdta~~;.; The apr;eal is allowed. the conviction ts qii4shed· and t~"''.sent,enqe.·~s set aside. ~-.;_;, .. ·,~:••-:,.';:.~,,.;._\~;,1-·.~i-~ .. ,'.''"·t?>:,::,1•'.,;~~-;,;:._:~:-:";;'.',,·{:·",.: '--:.c._•. _ , · . , . ... ,,.·,,(,.:,,,· ... ·~1 . . · , , ,' ... ,,, .·~ •_··,] ·'··1•·;'·',;.•.~•-\',.l,\°:,'' _;;'.j ! 1/,•·';'-),:•/ :-:,.-•..,,,,;·. --~~.,-,.,:~•-:i,•·'· ,.··~·.;,_;·j' -,af-,. ,,._...,. ri•}: -' .,·.\·-\~:\,,·1·',-' .. :--''.,, •' 1 -~ ·c'••1 . 'r ,, •. . ·.·•.•-· .·, ·I•·. ·.'.:.:-:-"/·· .: - .. ,,>' . • • ,,;_Li,· , •, ',/,,, "'' .~. '. • • • , ! __ ,. ' - ., ', • •• ,. •• : . _. ,_.. a . · .- :' • ,, · . . ·. , · · : •. • • • • . . ' ; -