Francis Munkoyo and 2 Ors v The People (SCZ Appeal Nos. 160-163 of 1985) [1987] ZMSC 94 (15 September 1987)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT NDOLA· (Crlmln•l Juri~dictlan) IETblEEN1 s.c.z. APPEAL NOS. 160- 16) OF' 1985 I FRANCIS MUNMUVB DIMAS MAKISA IND SHADRECK MULENIA V ■ THE PIIPLE Appellants Respondent CDRAMt Nguluba, O.&:. J., Barlinar anct Sekale JJ.8 15 Sap1c111Dber, 198'7 ,ar tha Appell•nta I Mr. Ald s. M. Muntha11 e Sanlar L.eg■l l;auna■l > Actvoaa ◄te ,ar tha Respondent l M\9• F • Mw■ftaali1an1a, Senior Stats l U D I M E N T Sakal•, J.s., dellverad the judgm ■nl ef the court. Ce ■ a referred toi (1) Patrick Kunda and Robertson Mule.wa I Chleenp• va Tha Paap1a (1980)ZR 105 : Tha thraa appellants w•~• eaah aenteneed to ,wanty fiva yaara lmprlaanment with hard labour fallewlng upan their convlotlane t'or the arranae er aggravated robbery. The partlaulars of the arranae alleged ,bat the ttlraa appallanta an 11th January 1981 at Ndala, jaintly and whllail ■ atlng □ f 1:agethe~ ri,bbed Patrick Arthur C:ahery/nne wrlet111atah,. ane radla, Kl+OO. DD cash, three palra ar glaeees, two belta, three calculatare end ane a■mara ell valued at K1,D3D. OO and uaad vialanoe at the tlaa ar tha nbbery. Tha prasecution evldenaa aonalualvaly aatabliahed that there was an aggrav ■ tad rabbery at the house er tha ao■pl ■inant during tha evanlng or 11th January 1981 end that the items aubjact af the charge were atolan fra- tha - J2 - cnmpt,1nent. It wee eleo not in dispute th•t tha ltama aubject of the charge ware aubaequantly racava~ad by the palioa an 18th February, 1981 ■t tha hauae af the firat appellant and ldentiflad by the aampla1nant. Tha paliae ■laa lad by a conetabla kna1a111 ■a ChlmuE■zu aald they racsavared ■ Pireal'm fram the haua• or the flrat appa11ant. It M■a common aause tha, aanatabla Chl•uzazu hed baan convlatad of theft gf th■ flrean reeaverad ,~am•~• flret appellant• a house. The praaacution 1nt•aduaad 1n avldanca statements ra■Dl"dad from the thre-a appellants arter a trial 111lthln ■ trial. The ruling in a tr.lal wi thln a trlel aanalstad ar faur 11nea and give ftD reauna ldhy lhe. leaffled trial judge acaap-tad the praaaautian avldan••• The ~rJS-• fpr,■ll ■nt gava evldenae in hla defence ••ntandlng· ,hat the ltama found ln hla hauaa hed baen braught by canatabla Chlmuzazg ror aafa kaapln9. Tha seaand and third appallan,a in ,ha!, daf■noa danlad being .tnvalved in the rabbel'y. Tha aaaand appall ant ex,l ■lnad that he~•• •r~aatad at the tlma ha went \D the pallaa 1tatlan ta check for hls unmla wha had bean appraha• ndad by the pollne. Th~ third appallanl a,cplalnad .th•t ha ld88 arrasted baci.u•e he witnaaaad tha fl:ret ■p11a11ant buying ■ alath material from hla friend. The laarned trial judge idantltled the 1a8UI 1n the aaea to be whath•r the three appall ■nt■ ware the ,erpetratara Df the robbery. fhe ~rial judge round that an tha ~■sla af the warn 1nd cautian atetn■nta and tha finding af the atalan 1tema and the Firaa:rm in the firat appallant•e hauaa he muat have been one af tha perpatratara ar this rabbary. The avldanr:a against the aaaond and third appellants· 'flf■11 taund ta be ln thei~ warn end cauttan statements. The learned - J:, trial judge found no reason ta daubt tha voluntariness af thaen atatemants. Mr. MwanaQhango appearing ror the stats infamad tha caurt, prapnrly so inaur vle~ that ha wea not auppartlng the canv1ct1an against the aacand and third eppallants. t.-.. Muni;hall a:rguad anly the appeal agalnat aanvlctian af the rlrst appellant. The maJar ground advanced by Mr. Munthe11 wee that th• learned irie1 judge mledlraated himaalf by na~ aanaldering tha e~~lanatlan olv■n by Iha r1rat appellant. Ma submitted that the flrat appallant axplained haw the prapa~ty waa round ln hla huuae and th ■ axplenat1an waa BUJPG~tad by ·~4, hla ~ire. Mr. Munlhall palntad aut that tha pallc■ wltneaeea agreed thet when ,hav want ta tha rlret eppallan~•a hauae 8himuzezu had bean apprehended as a suepaot. T~i• Chlmu1a1~, ha want on,~•• avan,ually a1nvlated a, a rlreana ,ound ln the hauaa at tha fl•■t appellant. He eubmlttad that had the learned tna1 judge aanaldared the •~planatlon given by tha t!rat epJall ■nt ha ahauld hava round that lt might have reaaanably bean tru■• Mr. Muntha11 a1raad that althaugh the firat appellant aauld nat be convicted ar tha major charge ha might have bean a r■salvar af tha ltmns but nat ■ Hbber. an behalr af tha state Mr. MwanamhangD aubmitiad that tha items aubjact af the charga did nDt oomm fram I suita•1e allagedly brought ta tha firat a,pallant'a heuea by Chimuzazu. He ratarrad tha aourt ta page 1,. af the raaard 111hera it ia auggeeted that theaa items Mere nat ln th■ sultcaaa. Ha qulakly aanceded that tha trlel Judg11 did nat in his judgment consider thla matter but asked the caurt ,a apply the prav1aa. He •laa painted aut that 1f the r1rat appellant aauld net be round guilty an the main ahata• ha could ba faund guilty ... l4 af ~eoeiving the pruperty. He contended that aven excluding the warn and caution etetemants 1 which he conceded ware wrongly admitted, there waa avarwhelming avidenae suppartlng the conviction against tha fir ■ t appellant~ We have v1ry carefully examined the avidanaa an racard. Me nata framm the trial judaa•a judgmant that ha d1d nat deal with the question af the ownership af t"9 au1tcaaa taund at tha t'iret •PP•llant•a hauaa mant■1nlng the stolen ltana, The case for the flrat appellant waa that thl!I! 1,na found at his hauee ~era brought to hla house by Chimuzazu. It la quite clear ta ue that all th• appell-anta 1 monvlatlan ■ wara baaed an their cunraaelona 1n canneatlon with wh1ch wa hava abservad that the ruling ~•a tao ahart and aantalnad nm raaaana. The question af the bravi-y of a ruling wae canal• dared in the ceaa gf' -Patrick Kunr::11 and Raber.tson Mule1a1a ' .. Chleeng@ vs l'!Je Peopl. e, <1>. A trial wlthln e tril!!ll 111aa held in that ceae ta d~tsrmine whethar to admit the statements allegedly made by the appellants. The learned trial oamml ■ e1on-r ruled that he did nat ballava tha appallanta without aattlng out in detail the raaaana rar hla ruling. Ha admitted the statements in avldanca. Thla aaurt hald, lntar al i a, th•t the result D f' a-..ch br■v1 ty l • th at ,ha»a la ns Judgmant an a trial within a trial end ,ha app■llant■ are deprived of their opportunity ta appnl against lt. On tha 8. QSl1tod.iv af that case tha rullna by tha laarnad trial judge in the trial ~1th1" a triel in the present c•e• waa na judgmant at all. Theaa canvictlana can only at.and 11' there le any other evidenae to auppart them. J5 ... In view of the ev1danaa establiahing that Chimuzazu wee the owner of the etolan ltems and had been convicted of thaft of a firearm; also found at tha first appall■nt•a house ~e find lt unsafe ta uphold the appellants annv1at1ans. I In these circumstances the canvictiane are quaehad and the santanaea are set aaida. Tha appaala are ecaardingly e11awad. We da nat think that an ths avldanue thet Ch1muzazu had taken tha p~operty ta the appellant•a hauee.,. cauld aanalder the quaat1an af \ha flrat appellant~, baing a guilty raaaivar. Far theae raaaons his appaal la •laa allowed. ••••••••••••••••••• M. H. s. Ngulube DE-PUTY CHIEF JUSTICE •••••••••••••••••••• a. T. Ga-rdnar SMPRE~E tOURT JURJ3E ••••••••••••••••••••• E. L. Bakele SUPREME COURT JUDGE