Collins Silungwe v People (Appeal no. 97 of 1989) [1989] ZMSC 135 (13 June 1989)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA Appeal no. 97 of 1989 HOLDEN AT NDOLA I ' ' (Civil jurisdict~on) -,. · , an.d COLLINS SlLUNGWE - ; . Appe~ ra'nt ,I • ; .. CORAM: Ngulube, O~C. J., Gtlrdr1er, A. J. S~- and. Sala la, J~S .. THE PEOPLE . ·-~ · . Resp~ndent ' . ' ' 13th June, 1989 .. ·. , . .• : · . , · :~ !~ •·· . . I _ , • · The appella_nt app~ared in person · · Mr. Banda, Senior State Advocate,. for ,the State, not ·present ~. ~ -:,:. ' • ! ' ,' ( . • • • a . ... • , . ·-. • • , I I Ngulube, D. C. J. delivered the .judgment of toe. court . · .. .. • • • : = • • • • • • ' ,,. ·,:· • > • ;- ·~ .. :~-.. ~ :J, ... ,. . .... , ' . . . . . . The appellanf· recetved eighteen· fe~rs imprisonment with. tiard labour for aggraveted robbery • . _The . Part.tculars. were• 'that · . on the date in question, namely, 30th January,. 1984~ at Chingola, the appellant and other persons unknown, robbed the complainant qf K100.00 in c.~sh. · . . ' . ~ ,. . ' ' ' ·· : · ··- , '.j?!v•,:· ... ~,;, .. :. ~.;•, . ·. · ' ,{..; ,:•-1:...~,1 . ~ • · . - ; • ._, :'.. • ;•!-~ 'The prosecution evidence -~as: that·,'.··on the'day.·1n ' : qu~stion late in the afternoon,' the complainant ~as ·1n)u~r - ·. kitchen, while her husband was taking a bath~. She ·.had deposited the K100',.oo which. the husband had given. to ·her in her brassiere. All of' a sudden, a group' of. young ruffians . stor■ed into the yetd; entered her kitchen; s~arched ·her even in the ~resslere; and took t~e ni~ney •. · They then started · terrorising her and her cries for help attracted the husband's . attention. When the.husband came the of.fenders picked up. stones and started smashing the. windows ln the house and also . ' ' · 2/ •• ;,.'. attempted . .. '. ,, : .... t• - The complain~rrt$ wen hldlng attempted to smash down the door. untl 1 the husband decided that he had enough arid W. OUld r.lsk · hls· · life and cha,e them. When·he got out, the'offen<lers··took· tQ their . heels, but they chased one of them ·who ·riar, ·.1nto his_ o_wn mother• s bathroom a distance away but was appr.ehended :.and taken to the. pol~ce. This was: the appQHan~. :· :·· ··.: · ·.-·. •. - · ·• : 1 ,_: : , ••• ·.; ·• . ' ' ' .. : on his own behalf the appellant has argued that the. ' • ' • I ' • ' ' ' • ·.'.'. ' i .. \ · .' ~~ f :._ ~-· }.:· ·.~.-.. 1.~ ~- ' . :. ~-:: ~ /the _offence In this case was not. ·one of aggrava.tf!d imtib--er,y.. He . · · .says t~at he and other persons · had gone to · :the ·cbmp i al nttnts ' ' • • • • • • .., ;, 1. • • :house t~ drink beer becaus~ the compla!nani ·was ':in -:the ~ablt ·-~· of·brewing beer which iha was selling.to ,the public. •We n~te.~ that on• this point/complainant. and ·her hU~baod h~d,·.t _e$ilf1ed . .. and they were bel ~eved .. th.at they ha,d long· s~o~-p~d · bre~ln'g · bee~ an~ . sell lng 1.t to the publ le arid that, thtr.e \tla~ no·.: su_ch ·. beer drlnk on the particular day.· . The appeHant has· al$<>°'&~g~e<i' that~: ba~·•us'l - .the evidence suggested that ·the offenders were drunk and they were hooltgans intent on· Vlolenc~. lt me·~n~ '.that thelr aim wa~ . ~imply to beat up' the complainant and her' 'husband and ·-.th,t .. . ·.i~h -~o.unted· to ·_some fonn of fun for : the. ho~U.g~o~~:'k, He. _h_~s argued, therefore, that lf he was guilty .of. any·.offence .at ·:an,' . it should be that of assault qOd c;erta.lnly o.~t--th.ef1/ or aggr~v~1;ed .. · ,- · ·. · r.obbery . ... _ .. -':::· t /:'>· ~-:~~·>: ~·> · ''· . . _'.> ' . . : . ~ . . ' We have considered ~h~ argument·s'·~~lclf t~e appellant has raised and we find thaUhare was no problem :.of . Identification . · .. . 11,1. thla:~ case. 'The appellant ·personally r>tac~~)\lmself •t· :the· . ·-s,cene of the offence. We find al ~o tµat: on¢e 'it· -.~a·s: tfoc~pted. ' .. _ as lt was' in this case. that K100.00 w·a-s snatctted':'.froin .ih,e · . c'ompla1nant by those young hoili"gens .wh9 .the~:;$_ma;hed up ~hilr · windows- and were gen'era11y ·ver-y violent to _the: cpmplain~nt~ ~h~ . offence was aggravated robb~ry. Wh~th,r:t~~ hodllg~ns.~~riv~d ~ny . . .- fun or not is ·beside the point.. The evi'dence :ag~'inst thi'~ ~ppellant w~s stmply ov~rwhelmlng and· the~':is' ~b.solu~e1y:.no ground · ~pon which we. can lnterfer• wt~. ttte · convictJon •. ;· · .. : · · . . _.-: .. , · ., .. ; -.. · ·. ·.• · : .. '• ~ ,1' I• • ' • •• • • • • • • I ' ; • I • . • . • • . I · • . . I •, • I I{ • ' . • • I • • • ... ' - , .. ,! • .. 3 ..... i ' . • I ... . ' • With regard to, the 'sentence .of-' eight~~n ,,~~-~·. we polnt ; out· only that where a ·gang . COIJll'!l ts_•ihe '·r?b,~ery ~: . .'P.·Zl~Jcular ly' a : very \it o I ent robbery~ members of sue~ .: gangf ca~Lf';!~pect to rec el ve a sentence hlgher than· the mandatory. mtnlmum/ ·1:.. ,' :; • • . . . -:· ·• -·,., •: • I; ( . . ··•. . . .: ,: . . : ....... •. \ • . "l, ' . The sentence of 'eighteen ¥ears ~as ,apptoR~late. bnd 'we · do not ·propose to disturb 'lt. The· app~al . 'is:" ~1~.mi~_sed. ' · · .. ' .... •, •.'· ... . . . ·-. .' :, • : • •• ,... • ; • • I I • + • . ·:·· i . , .. ,· . ,.• ... . ~-~··-~·-···················· M. M.s •. w~ Ngut:ub~·.;- ·.: . ~ ;::. . DEPUTY CHIE~ . J~STICE . : . . ·•. , ················~~--~·~----··· 8. T~ Gardner ·. '.' ':. ·· · .. . ·. . SUPREME COURT' ;JUDGE . . ·. : • • . J o • • I ' . , .. •. ,. . -· J . . .... , . . .. • •~ • •, •.• ~ •~•·•~• ~·•• ":~-~es • • 1 ~ • •.• • _- - E .• I,.. Sakal a. .- . · ·. : . .' SUPR~ME: COU~l JUDGE.,'.. • ; I •.-•• •. 1 • I • • . • I•._•, .' I • I • . .. . . .. . '• .. • ••. . . I :..\, .. ' , . . . . .. ' - -:: ~( :~,· ~ . ·1)·1\ ·_:.:; '··(~'.!0::< <·::;•; /. ~: ' _ .. ·,\ .";· ~· 1:; .~ ' '. .;j ... · .. ~·(: (·.~:J ·~.~.--.. :;. \ .:/.'. : • :· .:·< _,-~--J~.\.; :: _·p :: ;.•.·~ ~ _;: < ... . \~i:t ::~~i ~•:;•; ,:J:, ::\;s;.·"1 • , : :•>,i' ' ~'.~ ,t : ,, • ' . - ' . . . ~:;i~ ',•~ I; •: ,;,,; .:•: .;·:•_-;~.-:.;.\:::•\ ~~;j 2{'1,.t <o" . L - l . , . •, •• ' ~. , ; , . I ~ .... -.. . ... ;. j, ., -..: \