Charles Mwamba v People (SCZ Appeal No. 106 of 1995) [1996] ZMSC 59 (7 May 1996)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA scz Appeal No. 106 of 1995 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Criminal Jurisdiction) CHARLES MWAM3A Appellant vs THE PEOPLE Respondent CORAM: Challa. Chirwa and lllzyllllba JJ. S. For the Appellant For the Respondent 22nd November. 1995 and 7th May 1996 Mr. s.w. Chirambo, Senior Legal Aid Counsel Mr. M. '4.lkelebai, Senior State Advocate J U D 6 N E N T Challa, J. S. delivered the judgment of the court. The appe 11 ant was charged with an offence of aggravated robbery. The particulars of the offence were that, he, with another person on 13th day of February, 1993 at Kabwe l n the Kabwe District of the Republic of Zambia, jointly and whilst acting together did rob Given Mwape of 1 corapressor valued at K60,000 and at or immediately lfter to use actual violence such the property. to robbery did use or threatened the Central Province of the said Given Mwape to obtain in order The appellant was convicted and was imprisonment with hard labour. to 15 sentenced He now appeals to this years The brief facts of the case court ag at nst the conviction. were that on 13th February 1993 around 7 hours PW1 opened his left his security guard bar and closed it at 22 hours. The following morning PW1 namely Given Mwape broken was stolen, and into by that Then PW1 went to he knew one of told by the security guard that the bar had been them i.e. Lason Mweemba. the compressor was locked inside. thieves and He /2 •••• - J2 .. From to tell him the police. the matter to compressor was the police station. He went back to the bar. report the Police PW1 went to Katondo and alerted friends and relatives about Two hours the stolen compressor. later Mr. Willie Mwanabuna went that somebody PW1 went to see 1 t and recognised was selling a compressor. it as his; he went to inform the police about it. He went there with found with The told him that the thieves would come back Mr. Mwanabuna who for them K10,000. At the balance and he was told the police that he was He apprehended by the police. with others and he gave their names and that they stayed at Poleni compound. to Poleni compound for the people he had mentioned and they were found and were picked. the accused persons A1 The compressor was Charles Mwaba The watchman died and retrieved before the prosecution took place. the balance of K2,000 as he had paid and A2 Lason Mweemba. it was valued K60.000. that man went later escaped. Those were They went That man hours for There are is that the the appellant on Mr. Chi rambo submitted two grounds of appeal advanced in this case. learned trial judge erred in The first ground the uncorroborated evidence of convicting th at the statement of PW2 and PW4. The escapee did not give an escapee was not corroborated. He argued any evidence. and that A1 the compressor but A1 the escapee. explained how he was They They went A1 gave an explanation on how he were came on the scene of the sale. The escapee was an accomplice. the statement was a hear-say. found at the place with the compressor to PW2. later apprehended. together and sold the sale of took part in look for corroboration. Mr. Mukelebai on this ground argued that there was no PW2 said that A1 was seen need to the next morning selling stolen items. The appellant was seen. The the sale. appellant himself ~dmitted There was no need for corroboration. A1 participated in the sale of the compressor. The appellant is the one who got the balance from PW2. He was not an innocent one. taking part in /3 •••• - J3 - The second ground was that the prosecution had proved that court to allow the appeal. the court erred their case and urged in holding the the Mr. Mukelebai on argument as on ground one. participated in the sale. second ground advanced the same He maintained that the appe 11 ant In the buyer but he exp la 1 ned reply Mr. Chirambo admitted that A1 got the money the th at he wanted to get from money since was owed money for a long time. We led the There involved the police. submissions of selling stolen have carefully considered items. the escapee and by the evidence on record. found information of the learned counsel and It is a common He was that A1 was cause apprehended on the the is no dispute evidence of PW2 who that A 1 went to get the ba 1 a nee of the money. Mr. Chi rambo in the sale in order submitted that his client was to get the money which was owing to him. learned trial The evidence was that Judge did not accept this explanation. following the compressor was day Could his seen selling explanation that he was doing so in order to get the money he The explanation was dismissed. was owed be reasonably true? the compressor himself. The information Although . to the pol ice gave a lead to A1 's arrest and to the recovery In our view that lead and subsequent arrest of the Compressor. the prosecution's the compressor support and discovery of evidence. judge correctly convicted the appellant and the appeal is therefore dismissed. the escapee did not give evidence • the appellant was the night and appellant was learned trial selling stolen found item. that find the .the the the The in We / 4 •••• J4 .... .. ..................................... · M. S • Chai 1 a SUPREME COURT JUDIE .......... ....................... SUPREME COURT JUDIE - .................................. W. M. Mu.zyamba SUPREME COURT JUD6E