Hillary Hamanjanji v People (Appeal 17 of 2002) [2002] ZMSC 87 (5 May 2002)

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR ZAMBIA APPEAL NO, 17 OF 700? HOLDEN AT NDOLA (Criminal Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: HILLARY HAMANJANJI APPELLANT * AND THE PEOPLE CORAM: Ngulube, CJ, Sakala and Chitengi, JJS. On 5th March, 2002. For appellant - Tn Person For respondent - Mrs. J. C. Kaumba, Deputy Chief State Advocate JUDGMENT Sakala, JS, delivered the judgment of the Court. The appellant was tried and convicted by the Subordinate Court of the first class holden at Kitwe for the offence of doing grievous bodily harm contrary to Section 229 of the Penal Code CAP. 87 of the Laws of Zambia. The particulars of the offence alleged that the appellant on the 19th of April, J2 1998, at Kitwe in the Kitwe district of the Copperbelt Province of the Republic of Zambia, unlawfully did grievous harm to David Kaunda. The prosecution evidence, which centred on the evidence of PW1, the' complainant, conclusively established that the appellant brutally assaulted the complainant resulting in the injuries which were described by the doctor as a broken arm and dislocated shoulder. The learned trial Magistrate, * having found the appellant guilty of that offence, was of the view that he would impose a very heavy fine but that his jurisdiction did not permit the imposition of such a fine. Consequently, the appellant was committed to the High Court presumably for an appropriate heavy fine. But at the High Court, the learned Judge did not entertain the preference of the learned Magistrate to fine the appellant heavily; instead the learned Judge felt that a stiffer sentence could reduce the occurrence of such an offence in Kitwe thus the learned Judge sentenced the appellant to 4 years imprisonment with hard labour. The appellant has appealed to this court against both the conviction and the sentence. In his additional grounds of appeal, the appellant has criticized the findings of the learned trial Magistrate in relation to the conviction. He has also attacked the alleged injuries caused to the J3 complainant contending that he did not see any injuries as described by the medical report. * We have considered these complaints by the appellant. On the evidence on record as found by the learned Magistrate, we find that there is no merit in these complaints. The evidence as adduced by the complainant * overwhelmingly supported the charge of grievous bodily harm. In any event, the evidence of the appellant himself clearly showed that upon recognizing the parents of the complainant, he was very apologetic and in mitigating his own actions, he did assist the complainant with the cost of the treatment of the injuries which he sustained. We find no merit in the appeal against the conviction. It is, therefore, dismissed. In relation to the appeal against sentence, we take note that when the matter was committed for sentence, the learned Judge never took into account the mitigation that the appellant had given before the learned trial Magistrate which had persuaded that court to prefer a heavy fine. We therefore set aside the sentence of four years imposed by the learned Judge. In its place, we fine the appellant the sum of K2 million out of which KI.5 million be given as compensation to the complainant. The fine is to be paid within 6 months period. M. M. S. W. Ngulube, CHIEF JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT JUDGE. SUPREME COURT JUDGE.