Musengule & Another v Sibande (Appeal 9 of 2012) [2017] ZMSC 47 (6 June 2017)

S C Z S E L E C T E D J U D G M E N T N o . 1 9 O F 2 0 1 7 P .6 2 0 IN T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F Z A M B IA A P P E A L N O . 9 /3 5 /3 6 /2 0 1 2 H O L D E N A T L U S A K A (Criminal Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: L T G E N G E O J A G O R O B E R T M U S E N G U L E A M O N S IB A N D E A N D 1S T A P P E L L A N T 2 ND A P P E L L A N T T H E P E O P L E R E S P O N D E N T C o ra m : P h iri, W a n k i a n d M a lila , J J S On 1st December, 2015 and . For the 1st Appellant: M r . B . C . M u ta le S C a n d M r . K . K a u n d a o f M e s s r s E llis & C o m p a n y For the 2nd Appellant: M r . R . M a in z a o f M e s s r s M a in z a a n d C o m p a n y For the Respondent: M r . R . M a s e m p e la , S e n io r S ta te A d v o c a te , N a tio n a l P r o s e c u tio n s A u th o r ity J U D G M E N T M A L IL A , J S , d e liv e r e d th e J u d g m e n t o f th e C o u r t. '... J2 P.621 Cases referred to: 1 . Z y a m b o v . T h e P e o p le (1977) Z . R . 1 5 3 2. Re T h o m a s M u m b a (1984) Z . R . 3 8 3 . A tto r n e y G e n e r a l v . M a r c u s K a m p u m b a A c h iu m e (1983) Z . R .1 4 . S a lu w e n a 5. R v . L o b e ll (1957) 1 Q B 547 v . T h e P e o p le ( 1 9 6 5 ) Z . R . 4 6 . M u s o le v . T h e P e o p le ( 1 9 6 3 - 6 4 ) Z . R . 1 7 3 7 . M w e w a M u r a n o v . T h e P e o p le ( 2 0 0 4 ) Z . R . 2 0 7 8 . K a fu ti V ilo n g o v . T h e P e o p le (1977) Z . R . 4 2 3 9 . M a s e k a v . T h e P e o p le ( 1 9 7 2 ) Z . R . 9 1 0 . M u s h e m i M u s h e m i v . T h e P e o p le (1982) Z . R . 7 1 1 1 . K a le b u B a n d a v . T h e P e o p le (1977) Z . R . 1 6 9 1 2 . T r ic k y v . T h e P e o p le (1968) Z . R .2 1 1 3 . C h u b a v . T h e P e o p le (1976) Z . R . 2 7 2 1 4 . S ith o le v . T h e P e o p le (1975) Z . R .1 0 6 1 5 . A n n a m m a 1 6 . T h e P e o p le v . K a le n g a M u fu m u ( 1 9 6 8 ) Z . R . 181 (H. C) v C h e tty & O th e r s (1944)A. C 142 1 7 . S im u te n d a v . T h e P e o p le (1975) Z . R . 294 ( S . C .) 1 8 . S h r e e ji I n v e s tm e n ts L im ite d v . Z a m b ia N a tio n a l C o m m e r c ia l B a n k P L C ( A p p e a l N o . 1 4 3 /2 0 0 9 ) [ 2 0 1 5 ] Z M S C 4 1 9 . H a b a s o n d a v . M in is te r o f H o m e A ffa ir s & A n o th e r ( 2 0 0 7 ) Z . R . 2 0 7 2 0 . F e lo n C h o lw e v . Z E S C O L im ite d S C Z A p p e a l N o 8 4 /2 0 1 2 2 1 . W o o m in g to n v . D P P (1935) A C 4 6 2 ,4 8 1 2 2 . Z o n d e & O th e r s v . T h e P e o p le ( 1 9 8 0 ) ZR 337 2 3 . T h e P e o p le v . A u s tin C h is a n g u L ia to A p p e a l N o . 2 1 9 /2 0 1 4 2 4 . K e n io u s S ia lu z i v . T h e P e o p le ( 2 0 0 6 ) Z . R . 8 7 2 5 . P h ir i A n d O th e r s v . T h e P e o p le (1978) Z . R . 7 9 2 6 . D ir e c to r O f P u b lic P r o s e c u tio n s v . N g a n d u A n d O th e r s (1975) Z . R . 2 5 3 (S. C) 2 7 . L e m m y B w a ly a 2 8 . C h iz o n d e v . T h e P e o p le (1975) ZR 66 S h u la v . T h e P e o p le (1996) S . J . ( S . C .) 2 9 . L u n g u v . T h e P e o p le (1972) Z . R . 95 (CA) 3 0 . E n o tia d e s 3 1 . C h im b in iv . T h e P e o p le ( 1 9 7 3 ) Z . R . 191 (CA.) v . T h e P e o p le (1965) Z . R . 1 1 4 ••• J3 Legislation referred to: P.622 1. The Constitution of Zambia cap. 1 of the laws of Zambia 2. Criminal Procedure Code cap. 88 of the laws of Zambia 3. Anti- Corruption Commission Act cap. 91 of the laws of Zambia 4. Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act cap. 98 of the laws of Zambia W e sat w ith H on. Justice W anki w hen w e heard this appeal. H e has since retired. T his Judgm ent is thus by m ajority. A t the hearing of the appeal, M r. K aunda, w ho appeared on behalf of the lsI appellant, standing in for M r. M utale, State C ounsel, inform ed us that the lS I appellant had regrettably passed-on on the 21 s1 of N ovem ber 2015. W e w ere satisfied that the lsI appellant had indeed passed aw ay. In term s of section 335 of the C rim inal Procedure C ode chapter 88 of the law s of Z am bia, the appeal against the 1sl appellant therefore abated. H ow ever, it is inevitable to m ake reference to the 1sl appellant in this judgm ent since all the counts that the 2 nd appellant w as charged w ith and convicted of, are related to those that the 1sl appellant w as facing. T he present appeal is against a judgm ent of the H igh C ourt, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, in w hich it upheld a judgm ent of .... . , J4 P.623 th e S u b o rd in a te C o u rt w h e re b y th e a p p e lla n ts w e re c o n v ic te d a n d s e n te n c e d . W e s h a ll, in th is ju d g m e n t re fe r to th e S u b o rd in a te C o u rt a s th e 'tria l c o u rt' a n d th e H ig h C o u rt a s th e 'lo w e r c o u rt'. T h e 1s t a p p e lla n t w a s trie d a n d c o n v ic te d o n tw o c o u n ts o f a b u s e o f a u th o rity o f o ffic e c o n tra ry to s e c tio n 3 7 (2 ) (a ) a s re a d to g e th e r w ith s e c tio n 4 1 o f th e A n ti- C o rru p tio n C o m m is s io n A c t, c h a p te r 9 1 a n d fiv e c o u n ts o f c o rru p t p ra c tic e s b y p u b lic a o ffic e r c o n tra ry to s e c tio n 2 9 (1 ) a s re a d to g e th e r w ith s e c tio n 4 1 o f th e A c t. T h e 2 n d a p p e lla n t w a s trie d a n d c o n v ic te d o n fiv e c o u n ts o f c o rru p t p ra c tic e s w ith a p u b lic o ffic e r c o n tra ry to s e c tio n 2 9 (2 ) a s re a d to g e th e r w ith s e c tio n 4 1 o f th e A n ti- C o rru p tio n C o m m is s io n A c t a fo re m e n tio n e d . W e m u s t o b s e rv e th a t th e A n ti- C o rru p tio n C o m m is s io n A c t, c h a p te r 9 1 o f th e la w s o f Z a m b ia w a s re p e a le d a n d re p la c e d b y th e A n ti- C o rru p tio n A c t N o . 3 8 o f 2 0 1 0 w h ic h w a s in , tu rn re p e a le d b y th e A n ti-C o rru p tio n A c t N O .3 o f 2 0 1 2 . W e s h a ll, h o w e v e r, c o n tin u e to m a k e re fe re n c e to th a t la w , b e in g th e a p p lic a b le la w a t a ll m a te ria l tim e s . . , J5 P.624 T h e p a rtic u la rs o f o ffe n c e fo r th e a ll c o u n ts a re in te r-re la te d , a s w e h a v e a lre a d y m e n tio n e d , a n d c a n b e s u m m a ris e d a s fo llo w s : In th e firs t a n d s e c o n d c o u n t, th a t th e 1s t a p p e lla n t, b e in g a p u b lic o ffic e r in th e Z a m b ia A rm y , d id a b u s e h is a u th o rity o f o ffic e b y e n g a g in g B a s e C h e m ic a ls Z a m b ia L im ite d , a c o m p a n y in w h ic h th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t w a s th e C h ie f E x e c u tiv e O ffic e r, to s u p p ly fu e l a n d d o re p a irs a n d c o n s tru c tio n w o rk s fo r th e Z a m b ia A rm y . T h e v a lu e in v o lv e d w a s U S $ l ,2 7 8 ,5 1 1 .4 6 a n d U S $ 1 ,0 7 9 ,8 8 8 .4 4 , re s p e c tiv e ly . In th e s a m e tra n s a c tio n s th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t w a s a lle g e d to h a v e c o rru p tly re c e iv e d , a s in d u c e m e n t fro m th e 2 nd a p p e lla n t th e fo llo w in g : u n d e r c o u n t th re e , tw o g a ra g e d o o rs v a lu e d a t U S $ 2 ,5 0 0 .0 0 ; u n d e r c o u n t fiv e , a m ilk in g ta n k v a lu e d a t U S $ 2 ,5 0 0 .0 0 ; u n d e r c o u n t s e v e n , th re e s te e l s tru c tu re s v a lu e d a t U S $ 1 3 ,5 0 0 .0 0 ; u n d e r c o u n t n in e , b u ild in g m a te ria ls v a lu e d a t K 1 4 ,5 6 l,O O O . O Oa n d u n d e r c o u n t e le v e n , m ilk in g e q u ip m e n t to th e v a lu e o f U S $ 2 3 ,8 7 5 .0 0 . S u c h in d u c e m e n t o r re w a rd w a s a lle g e d ly g iv e n to th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t o n a c c o u n t o f h a v in g e n g a g e d B a s e C h e m ic a ls Z a m b ia L im ite d to s u p p ly o r u n d e rta k e c o n s tru c tio n w o rk s o r re p a irs , a s a lre a d y a llu d e d to . In th e fo u rth c o u n t, it w a s a lle g e d th a t th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t d id c o rru p tly g iv e to th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t, tw o g a ra g e d o o rs v a lu e d a t U S $ 2 ,5 0 0 ; in th e s ix th c o u n t, a m ilk in g ta n k v a lu e d a t U S $ 2 ,5 0 0 , in th e e ig h th g ro u n d , th re e s te e l s tru c tu re s v a lu e d a t U S $ 1 3 ,5 0 0 , in th e te n th c o u n t, b u ild in g m a te ria ls v a lu e d a t K 1 4 ,5 6 1 ,O O O . O O ,a n d in th e tw e lfth c o u n t, m ilk in g e q u ip m e n t to th e v a lu e o f U S $ 2 3 ,8 7 5 .0 0 . T h e s e 'g ifts ' w e re e x te n d e d to th e 1s t a p p e lla n t a s g ra tific a tio n fo r h a v in g e n g a g e d B a s e C h e m ic a ls Z a m b ia L im ite d . . . .. ,- J6 P. 625 A com pendious narration of the facts as deciphered from the evidence of fifteen prosecution w itnesses in the trial court is as follow s: T he 1st appellant w as the Z am bia A rm y C om m ander betw een 1 st January 2001 and 30 th June 2001, the m aterial tim e for the alleged com m ission of the offences, w hile the 2 nd appellant w as the C hief E xecutive O fficer of B ase C hem icals Z am bia L im ited. F or ease of reference, w e shall hereinafter refer to B ase C hem icals Z am bia L im ited as the 'com pany', T he com pany w as engaged by the Z am bia A rm y to supply fuel and to do repairs and construction w orks for the A rm y som etim e in 2001. P rior to this, the A rm y w as procuring petroleum products from B P , C altex and T otal, until M ay, 2001 w hen the 1 st appellant issued an instruction to C ol. L w endo (PW 1)the then D irector of T ransport, to instead procure fuel from the com pany. P ursuant to this instruction, C ol. N jolom ba (PW 12) as assistant to the 1st appellant issued internal m inutes to the D irector of F inance authorizing paym ents to the com pany for the supply of fuel as instructed by the 1st appellant. . , J7 P.626 W ith re g a rd to th e re c o rd s o f p a y m e n ts fro m th e A rm y to th e c o m p a n y fo r th e fu e l, L t. C o l. H a n z u k i (P W 5 ), w h o w a s th e D e p u ty D ire c to r F in a n c e , in th e A rm y in c h a rg e o f p a y m e n ts a n d c u s to d y o f fin a n c ia l re c o rd s , a v a ile d to th e T a s k F o rc e , th e le tte rs o f a u th o rity , lo o s e m in u te s , a u th o rity p a y m e n ts a n d p a y m e n t v o u c h e rs m a d e to th e c o m p a n y w h ic h w e re o rig in a te d fro m th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t's o ffic e , in c lu d in g c o rre s p o n d e n c e fro m th e c o m p a n y s ig n e d b y th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t. A m o n g s t th e s e w e re le tte rs a c k n o w le d g in g re c e ip t o f fu n d s fo r th e d e liv e ry o f th e fu e l. H e te n d e re d in th e tria l c o u rt th e s a id d o c u m e n ts a n d c o n firm e d th a t p a y m e n ts o f U S $ 6 7 ,0 0 0 a n d U S $ 4 4 ,2 5 0 w e re m a d e o n 1 3 th J u n e 2 0 0 1 a n d 1 8 th J u n e 2 0 0 1 re s p e c tiv e ly , to th e c o m p a n y fro m th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t's a s s is ta n t o n th e in s tru c tio n s o f th e 1s t a p p e lla n t. In S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 1 , R ic h a rd N y o n i (P W 4 ) a c o n tra c to r, w a s in tro d u c e d to th e 1s t a p p e lla n t b y th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t to c o n s tru c t a b u ild in g fo r a m ilk in g p a rlo u r, th re e c a lf p a n e s a n d a s e rv a n t's q u a rte r a t th e 1s t a p p e lla n ts fa rm in M a k e n i. T h e c o n s tru c tio n w o rk s c o m m e n c e d o n th e s u p e rv is io n a n d g u id a n c e o f th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t w h o • " . J8 P.627 also made payment arrangements with PW 4, for the works. It was apparent that a down payment for the purchase of equipment and material for the project had been made by the 2nd appellant who additionally supplied, through the company, the steel for the steel framed milk parlour. The 2nd appellant subsequently referred PW 4 to a M r. Simasiku (DW 2) of M azzinites Company Limited, which was believed to be a subsidiary of the company. M r. Simasiku was to make arrangements for the payment of the balance for the construction works. In the same year, the 1st appellant instructed the Quarter M aster General for the Army, Brig. Gen. Phiri (PW 2)whose duties included dealing with matters relating to accommodation and supplies, to engage the company to construct prefabricated housing units at Kaoma Barracks. Following this, on 17th October, 2001, the company gave a quotation for the project signed by the 2nd appellant and subsequently a contract commencing 8th November, 2001, was drawn up and signed between the Army, on one part, the company and M azzinites Company Limited, on the other. • • J9 P.628 D u r in g in v e s tig a tio n s , V in c e n t M a c h ila ( P W 1 3 ) a n d F r id a y T e m b o ( P W 1 5 ) , w h o w e r e I n v e s tig a tio n O f f ic e r s a t A n ti- C o r r u p tio n C o m m is s io n c o m p ile d a n d s u b m itte d a r e p o r t to th e T a s k F o r c e . T h e c o n c lu s io n o f th e in v e s tig a tio n s w e r e th a t th e c o m p a n y , in c o n ju n c tio n w ith a n o th e r c o m p a n y , M a z z in ite s C o m p a n y L im ite d , s u p p lie d f u e l a n d m a d e c o n s tr u c tio n w o r k s f o r th e Z a m b ia A r m y , a n d p a y m e n ts b y th e A r m y w e r e m a d e in th a t r e g a r d . I t w a s f u r th e r c o n c lu d e d th a t th e c o m p a n y , th r o u g h th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t, p u r c h a s e d a n d im p o r te d m ilk in g e q u ip m e n t a n d g a r a g e d o o r s f r o m K ir k W e n tw o r th o f G r e e n w o o d E n te r p r is e s , S o u th A f r ic a , a n d s te e l s tr u c tu r e s f r o m P ic k - a - S tr u c tu r e , S o u th A f r ic a , a ll c o n s ig n e d to th e A r m y C o m m a n d e r . B e tw e e n J u n e 2 0 0 1 a n d J u ly 2 0 0 1 a s P W 1 3 a n d P W 1 5 c o n tin u e d w ith th e in v e s tig a tio n , m ilk in g e q u ip m e n t w a s f o u n d a t th e 1st a p p e lla n t's f a r m w h ile s o m e g a r a g e d o o r s h a d a lr e a d y b e e n in s ta lle d a t th e 1st a p p e lla n t's p r o p e r ty in K a lu n d u . T h e I n v e s tig a tio n s O f f ic e r s f u r th e r o b ta in e d d o c u m e n ts f r o m th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t's b u s in e s s p r e m is e s . T h e v a r io u s d o c u m e n ts i JIG re trie v e d p e rta in e d to b u s in e s s re c o n c ilia tio n s b e tw e e n th e c o m p a n y , th e Z a m b ia A rm y , P W 4 , th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t, M a z z in ite s C o m p a n y L im ite d , th e Z a m b ia A ir F o rc e a n d L t. G e n . K a y u m b a , a m o n g o th e rs . P. 629 A fte r h e a rin g o f th e p ro s e c u tio n w itn e s s e s th e tria l c o u rt fo u n d th e a p p e lla n ts w ith a c a s e to a n s w e r a n d p u t th e m o n th e ir d e fe n c e . T h e y b o th e le c te d to g iv e s w o rn e v id e n c e . T h e d e fe n c e w a s c o m p o s e d o f e v id e n c e o f th e a p p e lla n ts a s w e ll a s D W l, M u rie l M w a n g o M u s e n g u le , th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t's w ife , D W 2 , V ic to r M a te S im a s ik u , th e C h ie f E x e c u tiv e O ffic e r o f M a z z in ite s C o m p a n y L im ite d a n d D W 3 , M a v is K a ira , th e M a rk e tin g M a n a g e r o f th e c o m p a n y . A t th e c lo s e o f th e h e a rin g th e tria l c o u rt fo u n d th a t o n th e to ta lity o f th e e v id e n c e , th e p ro s e c u tio n h a d e s ta b lis h e d th e g u ilt o f th e a p p e lla n ts o n a ll th e c o u n ts , b e y o n d re a s o n a b le d o u b t. T h e 1 s t a p p e lla n t w a s c o n v ic te d a n d s e n te n c e d to th re e y e a rs o n c o u n t o n e ; fo u r y e a rs o n c o u n t tw o ; o n e y e a r o n c o u n ts th re e , fiv e a n d s e v e n ; a n d th re e y e a rs o n c o u n ts n in e a n d e le v e n . T h e 2 n d a p p e lla n t w a s Jll P. 630 c o n v ic te d a n d s e n te n c e d to s ix m o n th s o n c o u n t fo u r a n d s ix ; tw o y e a rs o n c o u n t e ig h t; th re e y e a rs o n c o u n t te n a n d o n e y e a r o n c o u n t tw e lv e . A ll th e s e n te n c e s w e re to ru n c o n c u rre n tly . T h is e ffe c tiv e ly m e a n t th a t th e 1s t a p p e lla n t w a s to s e rv e fo u r y e a rs , w h ile th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t w a s to s e rv e 3 y e a rs . T h e a p p e lla n ts a p p e a le d to th e H ig h C o u rt a g a in s t th e ju d g m e n t o f th e tria l c o u rt, fro n tin g tw e n ty - fo u r g ro u n d s in th e c a s e o f th e 1s t a p p e lla n t a n d s e v e n g ro u n d s o n th e p a rt o f th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t. In its d e ta ile d a n d c o m p re h e n s iv e ju d g m e n t c o v e rin g 1 3 3 p a g e s , d a te d 1 6 th M a rc h , 2 0 1 2 , th e H ig h C o u rt u p h e ld th e c o n v ic tiO lJ .sa n d s e n te n c e s o n a ll th e c o u n ts , a n d d is m is s e d th e a p p e a l. It is fro m th is ju d g m e n t th a t th e a p p e lla n ts h a v e n o w a p p e a le d . M r. M a in z a a p p e a re d fo r th e 2 nd a p p e lla n t. H e re lie d o n th e h e a d s o f a rg u m e n ts a n d th e lis t o f a u th o ritie s file d o n b e h a lf o f th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t o n 8 th A p ril, 2 0 1 5 , w h e re in s ix g ro u n d s o f a p p e a l w e re a d v a n c e d a s fo llo w s : J 1 2 P. 631 1 . T h a t t h e c o u r t b e l o w m i s d i r e c t e d i t s e l f i n l a w a n d i n f a c t w h e n i t h e l d t h a t s e c t i o n 4 9 ( 2 ) o f t h e A n t i - C o r r u p t i o n C o m m i s s i o n A c t w a s n o t i n c o n f l i c t w i t h A r t i c l e 1 8 ( 7 ) o f t h e R e p u b l i c C o n s t i t u t i o n , c h a p t e r 1 o f t h e l a w s o f Z a m b i a . 2 . T h a t t h e c o u r t b e l o w m i s d i r e c t e d i t s e l f i n l a w a n d i n f a c t w h e n i t h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l m a g i s t r a t e w a s o n f i r m g r o u n d w h e n s h e c o n v i c t e d t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t o n c o u n t s t h r e e a n d f o u r o f t h e c h a r g e s h e e t . 3 . T h a t t h e c o u r t b e l o w m i s d i r e c t e d i t s e l f i n l a w a n d i n f a c t w h e n i t h e l d t h a t t h e r e i s o v e r w h e l m i n g d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e o n r e c o r d i n s u p p o r t o f c o u n t s i x a n d i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t h a d n o t s u c c e s s f u l l y c o n v i n c e d t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s t h i m w e r e u n f o u n d e d . 4 . T h a t t h e c o u r t b e l o w m i s d i r e c t e d i t s e l f i n l a w a n d i n f a c t w h e n i t f a i l e d t o a d j u d i c a t e u p o n t h e s u b m i s s i o n b y c o u n s e l f o r t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t t h a t t h e t r i a l m a g i s t r a t e h a d b r e a c h e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 1 6 9 ( 1 ) o f t h e C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e C o d e w h e n s h e f a i l e d t o s e t o u t t h e p o i n t s f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n h e r j u d g m e n t . 5 . T h a t t h e c o u r t b e l o w m i s d i r e c t e d i t s e l f i n l a w a n d i n f a c t w h e n i t h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l m a g i s t r a t e 's f i n d i n g i n r e l a t i o n t o c o u n t s f i v e , s i x , e l e v e n a n d t w e l v e o f t h e c h a r g e s h e e t w a s n o t p e r v e r s e . 6 . T h a t t h e c o u r t b e l o w m i s d i r e c t e d i t s e l f i n l a w a n d i n f a c t w h e n i t h e l d t h a t P W 4 's t e s t i m o n y c o n f i r m e d t h a t t h e 1 st a p p e l l a n t p a i d t h e 2 nd a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e s t e e l s t r u c t u r e s a n d b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s s h o u l d n o t b e t a k e n o r c o n s i d e r e d a t f a c e v a l u e . • • J 1 3 P . 6 3 2 T h e l e a r n e d c o u n s e l f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e w o u l d a d o p t t h e h e a d s o f a r g u m e n t s a n d l i s t o f a u t h o r i t i e s f i l e d o n b e h a l f o f t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t o n 3 1 s t M a r c h 2 0 1 5 , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e m a d e o n b e h a l f o f t h e 2 nd a p p e l l a n t . W e w o u l d b e f a i l i n g i n o u r d u t y t o u p h o l d t h e 2 nd a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o b e h e a r d o n a l l m a t t e r s h e r a i s e d a n d o n w h i c h w e a r e c o m p e t e n t t o d e t e r m i n e , i f , w e d i d n o t g i v e a d e q u a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l g r o u n d s , a n d a r g u m e n t s . T h u s i t i s p e r t i n e n t a t t h i s s t a g e t o o u t l i n e t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t ' s g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l w h i c h w e s h a l l c o n s i d e r s i d e b y s i d e w i t h t h e 2 nd a p p e l l a n t ' s g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l i n a s f a r a s t h e y a s s i s t M r . M a i n z a ' s a r g u m e n t s a n d t h e 2 nd a p p e l l a n t ' s c a s e . T h e s e a r e a s f o l l o w s : 1 . T h e lo w e r c o u r t e r r e d in la w w h e n it u p h e ld t h e le a r n e d M a g is t r a t e 's n o n - c o m p lia n c e o f t h e C o n s t it u t io n a n d s t a t u t o r y p r o v is io n s u n d e r A r t ic le 1 8 o f t h e C o n s t it u t io n a n d t h e C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e C o d e o n g r o u n d t h a t s u c h m is d ir e c t io n w a s n o t f a t a l. 2 . T h e c o u r t b e lo w m is d ir e c t e d it s e lf in la w a n d in f a c t w h e n it h e ld t h a t t h e 1 s t a p p e lla n t 's d e c is io n in c o u n t s 1 a n d 2 w a s d e v o id o f t r a n s p a r e n c y . . . J 1 4 P. 633 3 . T h e c o u r t b e lo w e r r e d in la w a n d f a c t b y c o n v ic tin g th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t in c o u n ts 3 ,5 a n d 6 o f th e c h a r g e s h e e t a n d b y h o ld in g th a t th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t f a ile d to g iv e a r e a s o n a b le e x p la n a tio n n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e in c o n s is te n c ie s in th e e v id e n c e o n th e r e c o r d s h o w in g h o w h e a c q u ir e d th e s a id g a te s a n d th e m ilk in g e q u ip m e n t. 4 . T h e c o u r t b e lo w m is d ir e c te d its e lf in la w a n d in f a c t b y h o ld in g th e tr ia l c o u r t's f in d in g o n c o u n ts th r e e a n d f iv e th a t it w a s u n a c c e p ta b le to in v o ic e m a te r ia ls m e a n t f o r p u b lic w o r k s to p r iv a te in d iv id u a ls r e g a r d le s s o f a r e a s o n a b le e x p la n a tio n b e in g o f f e r e d a n d th e e v id e n c e c o n f ir m in g th a t th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t p u r c h a s e d th e ite m s in is s u e d ir e c tly f r o m th e R e p u b lic o f S o u th A f r ic a f r o m h is o w n r e s o u r c e s . 5 . T h e c o u r t b e lo w m is d ir e c te d its e lf in d is m is s in g th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t's c o n te n tio n o n c o u n ts th r e e a n d f iv e th a t th e r e w a s g r o s s d e r e lic tio n o f d u ty o n th e p o in t o f in v e s tig a tio n s w h ic h s h o u ld h a v e b e e n r e s o lv e d in th e a c q u itta l o f th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t. 6 . T h e c o u r t b e lo w m is d ir e c te d its e lf w h e n it u p h e ld th e c o n v ic tio n o f th e 1 S ta p p e lla n t in c o u n ts s e v e n , n in e , a n d e le v e n b y w h o lly r e ly in g o n th e e v id e n c e o f P W 4 , P W I 3 , a n d P W 1 5 w h ic h w e h a v e a lr e a d y c o n te n te d a b o v e a s b e in g in a d e q u a te , c o n tr a d ic to r y a n d u n r e lia b le . 7 . T h e c o u r t b e lo w m is d ir e c te d its e lf b y e n d o r s in g th e R u lin g o f th e tr ia l c o u r t w h ic h a c c e p te d P W I 4 's e v id e n c e w h ic h w a s d e v o id o f m a te r ia ls th a t w e r e u s e d to r e a c h h e r c o n c lu s io n . T h e le a r n e d c o u n s e l f o r th ~ 2 n d a p p e lla n t a r g u e d , in g r o u n d o n e , th a t s e c tio n 4 9 ( 2 ) o f th e A n ti- C o r r u p tio n C o m m is s io n A c t w a s m c o n f lic t w ith A r tic le 1 8 ( 7 ) o f th e C o n s titu tio n w h ic h s ta te s th a t a J 1 5 P.634 p e r s o n w h o i s t r i e d f o r a c r i m i n a l o f f e n c e s h 3 1 1 n o t b e c o m p e l l e d t o g i v e e v i d e n c e a t t h e t r i a l . S e c t i o n 4 9 ( 2 ) o f t h e A n t i - C o r r u p t i o n C o m m i s s i o n A c t w a s c o u c h e d a s f o l l o w s : "Where, in any proceedings for an offence under Part IV, it is proved that any person solicited, accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to receive or obtain any payment in any of the circumstances set out in the relevant section under which he is charged, then such payment shall, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, be presumed to have been solicited, accepted or obtained or agreed to be accepted, received or obtained corruptly." C o u n s e l a r g u e d t h a t t h i s p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r e d a n a c c u s e d p e r s o n t o r e n d e r a s a t i s f a c t o r y e x p l a n a t i o n t o t h e c o u r t i f f o u n d w i t h a c a s e t o a n s w e r b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t ; t h a t u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n i f a n a c c u s e d p e r s o n e l e c t e d t o r e m a i n s i l e n t o r e l e c t e d n o t t o g i v e a s a t i s f a c t o r y e x p l a n a t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t w a s e n t i t l e d t o p r e s u m e t h a t a n y p a y m e n t r e c e i v e d b y h i m w a s c o r r u p t l y s o l i c i t e d , a c c e p t e d , r e c e i v e d o r o b t a i n e d a n d w o u l d c o n v i c t h i m a c c o r d i n g l y . I t w a s h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s r e f e r e n c e t o t h e c a s e o f Zyambo v. The Peoplel a n d t h e c o n s e q u e n t f i n d i n g t h a t s e c t i o n 4 9 ( 2 ) w a s n o t i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f • • J1G P. 635 A r t i c l e 1 8 a s i t m e r e l y g i v e s a n a c c u s e d p e r s < : > l la n o p p o r t u n i t y t o g i v e a s a t i s f a c t o r y e x p l a n a t i o n i f t h e a c c u s e d i s c h a r g e d w i t h a n o f f e n c e u n d e r t h e A n t i - C o r r u p t i o n C o m m i s s i o n A c t , w a s a m i s d i r e c t i o n . H e s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h e Zyambo1 c a s e w a s s e c t i o n 3 1 9 o f t h e P e n a l C o d e w h i c h r e q u i r e s a p e r s o n f o u n d i n p o s s e s s i o n o f , o r c o n v e y i n g a n y t h i n g r e a s o n a b l y s u s p e c t e d o f h a v i n g b e e n s t o l e n t o g i v e a n a c c o u n t o f h o w h e c a m e i n t o p o s s e s s i o n o f t h a t p r o p e r t y . I t w a s h i s s u b m i s s i o n t h a t t h e Zyambo1 c a s e w a s i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e a s s e c t i o n 3 1 9 w h i c h w a s t h e s u b j e c t i n t h a t c a s e w a s n o t d e c l a r e d a s b e i n g i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h A r t i c l e s 1 8 ( 2 ) a n d 1 8 ( 7 ) o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . T h e l e a r n e d c o u n s e l r e l i e d o n t h e H i g h C o u r t c a s e o f Re Thomas Mumba2 a n d u r g e d u s t o a d o p t t h e h o l d i n g i n t h a t c a s e a s b e i n g s o u n d l a w . I n g r o u n d t w o t h e l e a r n e d c o u n s e l 's a r g u m e n t w a s t h a t a s t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t h a d b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h a n o f f e n c e u n d e r s e c t i o n 2 9 ( 2 ) a s r e a d t o g e t h e r w i t h s e c t i o n 41 o f t h e A n t i - C o r r u p t i o n C o m m i s s i o n A c t , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n h a d t h e d u t y t o e s t a b l i s h a l l t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e • i J 1 7 P.636 o f f e n c e a s e n v is io n e d in th o s e s e c tio n s . A c c o r d in g to c o u n s e l th e p r o s e c u tio n d id n o t d o s o . I t w a s f u r th e r s u b m itte d th a t w h e n th e tr ia l c o u r t s u m m a r iz e d th e p o in ts to b e d e te r m in e d in its ju d g m e n t, it d id n o t m e n tio n th a t th e p r o s e c u tio n n e e d e d to e s ta b lis h th e e le m e n ts o f th e o f f e n c e a s r e q u ir e d u n d e r s e c tio n 1 6 9 ( 1 ) o f th e C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e C o d e w h ic h s ta te s th a t- "The judgment in every trial in any court shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, be prepared by the presiding officer of the court and shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision, and shall be dated and signed by the presiding officer in open court at the time of pronouncing it." C o u n s e l a r g u e d th a t th e tr ia l c o u r t o u g h t to h a v e s ta te d a ll th e in g r e d ie n ts o f th e o f f e n c e w h ic h th e p r o s e c u tio n n e e d e d to e s ta b lis h u n d e r c o u n ts th r e e a n d f o u r , th a t is to s a y , th a t th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t g a v e a n d th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t r e c e iv e d th e tw o g a r a g e d o o r s a s c h a r g e d . H e c o n te n d e d th a t th e f a ilu r e b y th e tr ia l c o u r t to d o s o w a s III c o n tr a v e n tio n o f s e c tio n 1 6 9 ( 1 ) , a n d th a t s u c h f a ilu r e is f a ta l. J18 P.637 Mr. Mainza took another limb under this ground by arguing that the court below misapprehended the testimonies of the appellants regarding the garage doors. He referred us to the portions of the record of appeal where the testimonies of the appellants were recorded, and submitted that the evidence clearly showed that the garage doors which the 1st appellant purchased from Greenwood Enterprises on 10th January, 2002, are not the same as those which were. supplied by Greenwood Enterprises to the Zambia Army through the 1st appellant on 14th December, 2001. It was further submitted that the 2nd appellant in his testimony denied having given the garage doors to the 1st appellant. With regard to the installation of the garage doors, counsel submitted that the lower court misdirected itself when it relied on the evidence of PW15, as his evidence was mainly hearsay; the witness not having witnessed the purchase or the installation of the garage doors. Relying on the case of Attorney General v. Marcus Kampumba Achiume3, he urged us to reverse this finding as being made upon a misapprehension of facts. •. " J1g P.638 C ounsel further assailed the low er court's finding that the ls i appellant did not give convincing reasons as to w hy the item s w ere addressed to him in his official capacity. T his, he said, w as erroneous because the appellants w ere not obliged to give convincing reasons to the trial court. O n this point he relied on the cases of Saluwena v. The People4, R v. Lobe115and Musole v. The People6 w here the standard of proof required of an accused person in crim inal proceedings w as discussed. H e argued that the 1sl appellant did not just raise doubt in the prosecution evidence but fully explained beyond reasonable doubt that the garage doors at his house w ere purchased in a separate transaction. S im ilar argum ents w ere. raised under ground four of the 1sl appellant heads of argum ents. C ounsel contented that the court's findings on the acquisition of the garage doors w as a m isdirection as it w as based on the evidence of PW 15 w hose evidence w as m arred w ith inconsistency. It w as subm itted that the testim ony of PW 15 show ed that he drew his conclusion that the garage doors and other item s at the 1sl appellant prem ises w ere acquired by the 2 nd appellant, .• . J 2 0 P. 639 f r o m t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t 's f a i l u r e t o g i v e a r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n a t t h e t i m e h e w a s w a r n e d a n d c a u t i o n e d . C o u n s e l a r g u e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e t h e w a r n a n d c a u t i o n s t a t e m e n t w a s b e i n g r e c o r d e d , t h e 1s t a p p e l l a n t w a s m e r e l y e x e r c i s i n g h i s r i g h t s t o r e m a i n s i l e n t . F o r t h a t r e a s o n t h e c o u r t 's r e l i a n c e o n t h a t e v i d e n c e w a s a m i s d i r e c t i o n . T u r n i n g t o t h e 2 nd a p p e l l a n t 's g r o u n d t h r e e , w h i c h i m p e a c h e s t h e l o w e r c o u r t 's f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e w a s o v e r w h e l m i n g e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n v i c t i o n i n c o u n t s i x . I t w a s c o u n s e l 's s u b m i s s i o n t h a t t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t d e n i e d g i v i n g t h e I s t a p p e l l a n t ' t h e m i l k i n g t a n k w h i c h P W 1 3 t e s t i f i e d a b o u t a n d p r o d u c e d a s P 6 8 ; t h a t , t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t a l s o d e n i e d h a v i n g r e c e i v e d i t . . T h e l e a r n e d c o u n s e l s u b m i t t e d t h a t u n d e r c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n P W 1 3 s t a t e d t h a t h e c o u l d n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t P 6 8 w a s i m p o r t e d b y t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e 1s t a p p e l l a n t . F o r t h a t r e a s o n , c o u n s e l a r g u e d t h a t t h e r e w a s n o b a s i s u p o n w h i c h t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d a s t h e p r o s e c u t i o n l a m e n t a b l y f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h e i r c a s e b e y o n d r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t a s e x p l a i n e d i n t h e c a s e o f Mwewa Murono v. The 'People7 and Saluwena v. The People4• C o u n s e l f u r t h e r a t t a c k e d t h e l o w e r c o u r t 's f i n d i n g t h a t . . J 2 1 P.640 t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t h a d n o t s u c c e s s f u l l y c o n v i n c e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s t h i m w e r e u n f o u n d e d . H e r e f e r r e d t o t h e t e s t i m o n y o f P W 4 a n d s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e s a i d w i t n e s s d i d n o t g i v e a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t h e s a w t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t s u p p l y t o t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t t h e m i l k i n g t a n k d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d i n q u e s t i o n . H e a d d e d t h a t c o n t r a r y t o t h e c o u r t 's f i n d i n g , i t w a s c l e a r f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e m i l k i n g e q u i p m e n t , w h i c h e x c l u d e d m i l k i n g t a n k s , w a s i m p o r t e d f r o m K i r k W e n t w o r t h t o t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t . I n c o u n s e l 's v i e w t h e m i l k i n g m a c h i n e s t h a t P W 1 3 w a s r e f e r r i n g t o i n h i s e v i d e n c e d i d n o t i n c l u d e a m i l k i n g t a n k . H e f u r t h e r a r g u e d t h a t , i n a n y e v e n t , i t i s n o t , t h e d u t y o f t h e a c c u s e d p e r s o n t o s u c c e s s f u l l y c o n v i n c e t h e c o u r t o n t h e a l l e g a t i o n s c h a r g e d a g a i n s t h i m b u t t o m e r e l y c a s t a d o u b t i n t h e m i n d o f t h e c o u r t , a s w a s d e c i d e d i n t h e Saluwena v. The People4 c a s e . I n f u r t h e r s u p p o r t o f t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t 's a r g u m e n t s u n d e r t h i s g r o u n d , i n s o f a r a s i t r e l a t e t o t h e i s s u e o f t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e m i l k i n g t a n k a n d m i l k i n g m a c h i n e s , w e r e t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t 's l e a r n e d c o u n s e l 's a r g u m e n t u n d e r g r o u n d s t h r e e , f o u r a n d f i v e o f t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t 's h e a d s o f a r g u m e n t . I t w a s s u b m i t t e d b y t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t 's .• ;; J 2 2 P.641 c o u n s e l u n d e r t h o s e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e c o u r t , i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o g i v e a r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n o n h o w h e a c q u i r e d t h e m i l k i n g e q u i p m e n t , f e l l i n t o e r r o r a s t h e e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e p r o s e c u t i o n e x h i b i t e d a n u m b e r o f i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s o n h o w t h e i t e m s w e r e a c q u i r e d . C o u n s e l r e f e r r e d t o t h e r e c o r d o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f P W 4 , P W 1 3 a n d P W 1 5 , a n d a l l e g e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d e l e c t e d t o a c c e p t o n l y s o m e p o r t i o n o f t h e i r e v i d e n c e , d i s r e g a r d i n g a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n f a v o u r a b l e t o t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t . I n c o u n s e l 's v i e w , P W 1 3 a n d P W 1 5 's e v i d e n c e w a s q u i t e i n c o n s i s t e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e i t e m s . I t w a s c o u n s e l 's s u b m i s s i o n t h a t t h e c o u r t b e l o w h a d n o d i s c r e t i o n t o b e l i e v e o n e p o r t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e o v e r a n o t h e r . H e n c e i n l i g h t o f s u c h i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d n o t h a v e r e l i e d o n t h e w h o l e o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e s a i d w i t n e s s e s . O n t h i s p o i n t , t h e c a s e o f Kafuti Vilongo v. The PeopleS w a s r e l i e d o n . C o u n s e l f o r t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t e x t e n d e d t h i s a r g u m e n t f u r t h e r u n d e r g r o u n d s i x o f t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t 's h e a d s o f a r g u m e n t s c o n t e n d i n g t h a t i t i s t h e s a m e i n a d e q u a t e a n d c o n t r a d i c t o r y e v i d e n c e o f P W 4 , P W 1 3 a n d P W 1 5 o n w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n c h o r e d i t s d e c i s i o n t o c o n v i c t t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t o n c o u n t s s e v e n , n i n e a n d e l e v e n . C o u n s e l r e l i e d o n t h e c a s e o f . . J23 P.642 Maseko v. The People9 and Mosheim Mosheim v. The People10 in arg u in g th at th e trial co u rt an d th e co u rt b elo w sh o u ld h av e sh o w n th e reaso n s w h y th e ev id en ce w h ich w as fav o u rab le to th e 1st ap p ellan t w as d isreg ard ed , failu re to w h ich th e co n v ictio n can n o t b e u p h eld . T h e learn ed co u n sel fo r th e 1st ap p ellan t fu rth er su b m itted th at n o n e o f th e w itn esses testified p o sitiv ely ab o u t th e m ilk in g eq u ip m en t. It w as arg u ed th at th e p ro secu tio n , th erefo re failed to co n n ect th e eq u ip m en t fo u n d at th e 1st ap p ellan t's farm , to th o se listed o n th e ch arg e sh eet. T h is, acco rd in g to co u n sel fo r th e 1st ap p ellan t, w as fatal to th e p ro secu tio n 's case. It w as fu rth er su b m itted b y co u n sel fo r th e 1st ap p ellan t th at th ere w as g ro ss d erelictio n o f d u ty o n th e p art o f th e in v estig ato rs w h ich sh o u ld h av e b een reso lv ed in fav o u r o f th e ap p ellan ts. C o u n sel o u tlin ed a n u m b er o f in cid en ts as ev id en cin g su ch d erelictio n . F o r in stan ce, th at P W S , w h o id en tified th e sig n atu re o f a M ajo r M w ew a, w as n o t called as a w itn ess; th at th e co rresp o n d en ce b etw een th e D irecto rate o f T ran sp o rt an d th e 1st ap p ellan t o n th e statu s o f th e fu el in th e A rm y w as n o t p ro d u ced ; th at P W 1 4 failed to p ro d u ce th e . . J24 P.643 m aterial used to exam ine the handw riting as the handw riting expert K irk W entw orth, w ho should have authenticated the 1 st appellant's defence w as not called. F urther that PW 15 failed to call any w itness to testify about the Z . R . A docum ents pertaining to the im portation and clearance of the goods allegedly consigned to the 1st appellant; that PW 13 deliberately and selectively om itted to produce all the. docum ents retrieved from the 2 nd appellant's office; and finally, that PW 15 conceded that he had established that the 1 st appellant im ported the goods in question by w ay of his analysis of the circum stantial evidence. C ounsel argued that these incidences and om issions clearly confirm ed that there w as dereliction of duty w hich should have been resolved in favour of the 1st appellant as w as held in Kalebu Banda v. The Peoplell. C ounsel pointed out that the trial court had observed that PW 13 had difficulties in nam ing som e of the m ilking equipm ent and desired that efforts should have been m ade to engage people w ith the relevant know ledge. In the view of counsel, the low er court in observing as it did, acknow ledged all the incidents of dereliction but nonetheless opted to rely on the prosecution w itnesses. .. . J25 P. 644 I t w a s c o u n s e ls ' s u b m is s io n th a t th e tr ia l c o u r t m a d e a n u n b a la n c e d e v a lu a tio n o f th e e v id e n c e o f P W 4 , P W I 3 , P W 1 5 a n d th e d o c u m e n ts f o r th e p u r c h a s e a n d im p o r ta tio n o f th e m ilk in g e q u ip m e n t in to ta l d is r e g a r d to th e 1 s l a p p e lla n t's d e f e n c e . T h e 2 n d a p p e lla n t's a r g u m e n t in g r o u n d f o u r w a s th a t th e lo w e r c o u r t m is d ir e c te d its e lf in f a ilin g to d e te r m in e th e s u b m is s io n s b y th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t w h ic h p o in te d o u t th e d is c r e p a n c ie s in th e tr ia l c o u r t's ju d g m e n t. T h e le a r n e d c o u n s e l a r g u e d th a t u n d e r s e c tio n 1 6 9 ( 1 ) o f th e C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e C o d e , it is m a n d a to r y f o r th e c o u r t to s e t o u t th e in g r e d ie n ts o f th e o f f e n c e f o r w h ic h th e a c c u s e d f a c in g tr ia l is c h a r g e d . H e a r g u e d th a t d e s p ite d e m o n s tr a tin g to th e lo w e r c o u r t th a t th e tr ia l c o u r t f a ile d to d o s o , th e lo w e r c o u r t e le c te d n o t to a d d r e s s th a t s u b m is s io n in its ju d g m e n t. H e c o n te n d e d th a t th is w a s a s e r io u s m is d ir e c tio n a s th e c o u r t f a ile d to a d ju d ic a te u p o n a ll th e m a tte r s b e f o r e it. T u r n in g to g r o u n d f iv e , th e le a r n e d c o u n s e l f o r th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t e n d e a v o r e d to p o in t o u t th a t c o n tr a r y to th e lo w e r c o u r t's h o ld in g th a t th e f in d in g s o f th e tr ia l c o u r t o n c o u n ts f iv e , s ix , e le v e n a n d . , J26 P. 645 twelve, were not perverse, the record shows that those findings and the reasoning of the trial court were flawed and ought not to have been affirm ed. To dem onstrate this, counsel recounted the evidence of PW 13 and PW 15 regarding the docum ents they retrieved during investigations, which included invoices, a bank draft (P22) and ZRA docum ents addressed to the 1 st appellant( P74 and P64). He argued that the evidence of these witnesses did not negative the evidence of the appellants as required by law. Counsel referred to the evidence of the 1st appellant on the record where he stated that he bought the m ilking equipm ent from Kirk W entworth of Greenwood Enterprises in 2002 and not in 2001 as purported by the prosecution and produced receipts to that effect. Further, that: the 2nd appellant also explained in detail the circum stances under which the com pany paid Greenwood Enterprises through a bank draft (P22) for the supply of m ilking equipm ent to Lt. Gen. Kayum ba and not the 1st appellant. The learned counsel also subm itted that when convicting the appellants in counts five, six, eleven and twelve, the trial court was laboring under the m istaken believe that the 1st appellant was obliged . , J 2 7 P. 646 t o p r o d u c e a l l t h e r e l e v a n t d o c u m e n t s t h a t h e i n t e n d e d t o u s e a t t r i a l , t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f f i c e r s . T h i s , h e s a i d , w a s n o t w h a t t h e l a w r e q u i r e d o f a n a c c u s e d p e r s o n . U n d e r g r o u n d S I X t h e l e a r n e d c o u n s e l i m p e a c h e d t h e l o w e r c o u r t 's h o l d i n g t h a t P W 4 's t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t p a i d t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e s t e e l s t r u c t u r e s a n d b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s h e u s e d i n c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e s t r u c t u r e s a t t h e f a r m o f t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t , s h o u l d n o t b e t a k e n a t f a c e v a l u e . H e a r g u e d t h a t P W 4 , w h o s e e v i d e n c e t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e l i e d o n i n c o n v i c t i n g t h e 2 nd a p p e l l a n t o n c o u n t s e i g h t a n d t e n , c o n c e d e d u n d e r c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t c o n f i r m e d t o h i m t h a t h e h a d p a i d f o r t h e s t e e l s t r u c t u r e s a n d b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s ; t h a t , h o w e v e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h a t p a r t o f t h e e v i d e n c e w h i c h w a s f a v o u r a b l e t o t h e a p p e l l a n t s a s r e l e v a n t . T h e l e a r n e d c o u n s e l s u b m i t t e d t h a t i n t e r m s o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e c a s e o f Tricky v. The People12, t h e t r i a l m a g i s t r a t e w a s o b l i g e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e e v i d e n c e o f P W 4 u n d e r c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e f a c t t h a t i t w a s u n f a v o u r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . - " J28 P. 647 T h e le a rn e d c o u n s e l s u b m itte d th a t th e lo w e r c o u rt e x h ib ite d b ia s b y n o t a d ju d ic a tin g u p o n a ll m a tte rs 'th a t c a m e b e fo re it a n d b y ta k in g in to a c c o u n t o n ly e v id e n c e fa v o u ra b le to th e p ro s e c u tio n . H e e n d e d h is s u b m is s io n b y p o s itin g th a t th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t d id o ffe r a re a s o n a b le e x p la n a tio n fo r th e tra n s a c tio n a n d d id a d d u c e s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e , th ro u g h P W 4 , D W I a n d D W 2 to p ro v e th a t th e s te e l s tru c tu re s w e re p u rc h a s e d b y L t. G e n . K a y u m b a , fro m w h o m th e 1s t a p p e lla n t b o u g h t th e m ; th a t c o n tra ry to th e tria l c o u rt's fin d in g s , th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t th e c o m p a n y p u rc h a s e d th e s te e l s tru c tu re s o n b e h a lf o f th e 1s t a p p e lla n t. In s u p p o rt o f th e a rg u m e n ts u n d e r th is g ro u n d , th e 1s t a p p e lla n t's c o u n s e l's s u b m is s io n w a s th a t th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t's e v id e n c e w a s c o rro b o ra te d b y D W 2 a n d D W 3 w h o re b u tte d th e e v id e n c e o f P W 4 re g a rd in g th e c o n s tru c tio n o f th e s te e l s tru c tu re . In fu rth e r s u p p o rt o f th is a p p e a l w a s th e 1s t a p p e lla n t's g ro u n d , s e v e n . T h e th ru s t o f th e a rg u m e n t w a s th a t th e lo w e r c o u rt m is d ire c te d its e lf b y e n d o rs in g th e ru lin g o f th e tria l c o u rt w h ic h a c c e p te d P W 1 4 's e v id e n c e . P W 1 4 's e v id e n c e re la te d to th e . . J29 P.648 id e n tific a tio n o f th e sig n a to rie s to d o c u m e n ts re trie v e d b y th e In v e stig a tio n s O ffic e rs d u rin g in v e stig a tio n s. A c c o rd in g to c o u n se l, P W l4 's e v id e n c e w a s d e v o id o f th e m a te ria l w h ic h w a s u se d to re a c h h e r c o n c lu sio n a s a h a n d w ritin g e x p e rt a n d th e re fo re th e tria l c o u rt's a c c e p ta n c e o f su c h e v id e n c e w a s a g ro ss m isd ire c tio n w h ic h c a u se d a n in ju stic e to th e 1st a p p e lla n t. C o u n se l su b m itte d th a t th is a m o u n te d to d e re lic tio n o f d u ty o n th e p a rt o fP W 1 4 . C o u n se l re fe rre d u s to th e c a se s o f C h u b a v . T h e P e o p le 1 3 , S ith o le v . T h e P e o p le 1 4 a n d A n n a m m a v C h e tty & O th e rs 1 5 in su p p o rtin g th e su b m issio n th a t th e e v id e n c e o f a h a n d w ritin g e x p e rt w itn e ss is o n ly a n o p in io n a n d , th e re fo re , th e b a sis o n w h ic h th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e e v id e n c e is d ra w n sh o u ld b e b ro u g h t b e fo re c o u rt fo r it to w e ig h its sig n ific a n c e . M r. M a se m p e la a p p e a re d fo r th e re sp o n d e n t. In re sp o n se to th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t's h e a d s o f a rg u m e n ts, h e re lie d e n tire ly o n th e h e a d s o f a rg u m e n t w h ic h w e re file d o n b e h a lf o f th e re sp o n d e n t. It w a s a rg u e d in re sp o n se to g ro u n d o n e th a t se c tio n 4 9 (2 ) o f th e A n ti- C o rru p tio n C o m m issio n A c t d id n o t sh ift th e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g th e c a se o n to th e a c c u se d b u t c re a te s a n e v id e n tia l b u rd e n . , BO P. 649 o f e x p l a n a t i o n . F u r t h e r t h a t , t h e s e c t i o n d o e s n o t i m p o s e a n o b l i g a t i o n o n t h e a c c u s e d t o r e n d e r a n e x p l a n a t i o n b u t , m e r e l y i n f o r m s t h e a c c u s e d i n a d v a n c e o f t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t , w h e r e i t i s p r o v e d t h a t h e s o l i c i t e d o r a c c e p t e d p a y m e n t a n d n o e x p l a n a t i o n i s g i v e n , h e w o u l d b e a s s u m e d t o h a v e d o n e s o c o r r u p t l y . M r . M a s e m p e 1 a s u b m i t t e d t h a t a p e r s o n c h a r g e d u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 4 9 ( 2 ) i s n o t t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y f r o m a p e r s o n c h a r g e d u n d e r a n y o t h e r l a w . T o i l l u s t r a t e h i s p o i n t , h e r e f e r r e d t o t h e c a s e s o f The People v. Kalenga Mufumu16 and Simutenda v. The People17, a n d s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e t w o c a s e s s h o w t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t i s f u l l y r e c o g n i z e d b u t t h e a c c u s e d m u s t b e w a r n e d t h a t i f h e c h o o s e s t o r e m a i n s i l e n t i n t h e f a c e o f s t r o n g e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t h i m , a n i n f e r e n c e o f g u i l t i s s t r e n g t h e n e d . H e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e s e c t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , d o e s n o t c o n t r a v e n e A r t i c l e 1 8 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . T h e l e a r n e d c o u n s e l 's r e s p o n s e t o g r o u n d t w o w a s t h a t t h e t r i a l m a g i s t r a t e d i d s e t o u t t h e i n g r e d i e n t s o f t h e f i v e c o u n t s i n t h e j u d g m e n t a s p r o v i d e d f o r b y t h e s t a t u t e . H e a r g u e d t h a t i t w a s . . J31 P.650 unnecessary for the court to replace w ords in the statute w ith w hat w as contained in the respective counts of the charge sheet. A s regards the argum ent that the trial court m isapprehended the appellant's testim ony over the purchase of the garage doors, counsel subm itted that the issue w as w hether there w as evidence that the 2 nd appellant bought the garage doors for the 1sl appellant. H e explained that the trial court m ade a finding that, according to the docum ents from G reenw ood Enterprises and K irk W entw orth's w itness statem ent, the 2 nd appellant did buy the garage doors from G reenw ood Enterprises, w hich w ere invoiced to the A rm y C om m ander as the recipient. H e contended that the low er court m ade a significant observation w hen it w ondered w hy the lsI appellant did not produce receipts of the purported purchase of the garage doors at the tim e of investigations. For counsel, this m eant that the evidence adduced by the 1sl appellant at trial did not exist at the tim e of investigations. In response to ground three, counsel's short argum ent w as that the testim onies of PW 4 and PW 13 as w ell as the docum ents from J32 P.651 G re e n w o o d E n te rp ris e s w e re s u ffic ie n t to c o n v ic t th e 2 nd a p p e lla n t in c o u n t s ix . H e s u b m itte d th a t a s a lre a d y a rg u e d in g ro u n d th re e , K irk W e n tw o rth h a d a tte s te d to h a v in g re c e iv e d in s tru c tio n s fro m th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t to in v o ic e a ll th e e x p o rt d o c u m e n ts to th e 1s t a p p e lla n t. T h e s e e x p o rt d o c u m e n ts in c lu d e d th e s u p p ly o f m ilk in g e q u ip m e n t to th e A rm y C o m m a n d e r. In c o u n s e l's u n d e rs ta n d in g th e m ilk in g e q u ip m e n t in c lu d e d th e m ilk in g ta n k s . C o u n s e l c o n te n d e d th a t th e d a te s o n th e d o c u m e n ts s h o w th a t th e tra n s a c tio n s o c c u rre d o n 2 6 th J u n e 2 0 0 1 , im p ly in g th e tra n s a c tio n s w e re w ith in th e p e rio d in q u e s tio n , th a t is , 1 s t J a n u a ry 2 0 0 1 a n d 3 0 th J u n e 2 0 0 1 . M r. M a s e m p e la 's a rg u m e n t in re s p o n s e to g ro u n d fo u r w a s th a t th e c o u rts a re n o t o b lig e d to c o n s id e r c o u n s e l's s u b m is s io n s . H e re fe rre d u s to th e c a s e o f Shreeji Investments Limited v. Zambia National Commercial Bank PLC18, in w h ic h w e a ffirm e d th is p o s itio n a n d to th e c a s e o f Minister of Home Affairs & Another v. Habasonda19, in s u p p o rt o f th e s u b m is s io n th a t a ju d g m e n t m u s t re v e a l a re v ie w o f th e e v id e n c e , a s u m m a ry o f a rg u m e n ts a n d s u b m is s io n s , a re a s o n in g o n fa c ts a n d th e a p p lic a tio n o f th e la w a n d a u th o ritie s to th e fa c ts . H e a rg u e d th a t '. J33 P.652 th e trial co u rt d id co n sid er, in th e ju d g m en t, w h eth er th e 1st ap p ellan t w as g iv en a m ilk in g tan k as g ratificatio n an d fo u n d as it d id . In o th er w o rd s, th e trial co u rt p ro p erly d id ad d ress th e issu e b ro u g h t b efo re it. In g ro u n d fiv e th e learn ed co u n sel arg u ed th at th e lo w er co u rt w as o n firm g ro u n d s to h av e fo u n d th at th e trial co u rt's fin d in g s w ere n o t p erv erse an d th at reaso n s fo r th e fin d in g s w ere g iv en fo r th e co n v ictio n s o n co u n t fiv e, six , elev en an d tw elv e. C o u n sel su b m itted th at if th e ap p ellan ts h ad d o cu m en ts to ex o n erate th em , it w as u n reaso n ab le fo r th em n o t to av ail th em . H e d em o n strated h o w th e co u rt w en t to g reat len g th s to g iv e a reaso n ed d ecisio n b y b rin g in g o u t th e v ario u s p ieces o f ev id en ce th at it relied o n in resp ect o f th e d o cu m en ts reg ard in g th e 2 n d ap p ellan t's p u rch ase o f th e m ilk in g eq u ip m en t as allu d ed to in th e arg u m en ts in th e p rev io u s g ro u n d s. T h e learn ed co u n sel's su b m issio n III resp o n se to th e fin al g ro u n d w as th at th e co u rt w as o n firm g ro u n d s III accep tin g th e ev id en ce o n th e im p o rtatio n o f p refab ricated h o u ses, th e fo reig n ex ch an g e tran sactio n s an d th e p u rch ase o f steel stru ctu res fo r th e • < . . J 3 4 P.653 1 s t a p p e lla n t. H e a r g u e d th a t th e lo w e r c o u r t a f f ir m e d th e tr ia l c o u r t's r e je c tio n o f th e e x p la n a tio n b y th e a p p e lla n ts a s it w a s c le a r f r o m th e e v id e n c e b e f o r e th e tr ia l c o u r t th a t th e s o u r c e o f th e f in a n c in g f o r th e p u r c h a s e o f th e s te e l b u ild in g m a te r ia l w a s f r o m th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t th r o u g h th e c o m p a n y a n d th e r e c ip ie n t w a s th e 1s t a p p e lla n t. H e p r a y e d th a t th e a p p e a l b e d is m is s e d f o r la c k o f m e r it a s e v id e n c e a g a in s t th e 2 nd a p p e lla n t w a s o v e r w h e lm in g a n d h a d b e e n p r o v e n to th e s ta n d a r d o f p r o o f r e q u ir e d in c r im in a l c a s e s . O n 1 6 th D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 , th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t f ile d h e a d s o f a r g u m e n t in r e p ly . C o u n s e l f o r th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t b a s ic a lly r e ite r a te d h is a r g u m e n ts u n d e r g r o u n d o n e , e m p h a s iz in g th a t s e c tio n 4 9 ( 2 ) is in c o n f lic t w ith th e C o n s titu tio n , a s a n a c c u s e d is le g a lly o b lig e d to g iv e e v id e n c e in r e s p o n s e to th e a lle g a tio n , c o n tr a r y to A r tic le 1 8 ( 7 ) a n d A r tic le 1 ( 3 ) o f th e C o n s titu tio n . I n r e s p o n s e to th e r e s p o n d e n t's s u b m is s io n th a t a p e r s o n c h a r g e d u n d e r s e c tio n 4 9 ( 2 ) d o e s n o t d if f e r f r o m a p e r s o n c h a r g e d u n d e r a n y o th e r la w , h e a r g u e d th a t in th e c a s e s r e lie d u p o n b y th e r e s p o n d e n t in s u p p o r t o f th is a r g u m e n t, th e a c c u s e d p e r s o n s w e r e c h a r g e d w ith m u r d e r u n d e r s e c tio n 2 0 0 o f th e . . J35 P.654 Penal Code. He submitted that unlike section 49(2), section 200 does not place any obligation on an accused to render a reasonable explanation; that, in the premise, the respondent's argument is misplaced. In reply to the respondent's arguments in ground two, counsel attacked the respondent's submission that the trial court did outline the ingredients of the offence. He maintained that the particulars that the trial court set out for counts three, five, seven, nine and eleven were not the same that he alleged the trial court failed to set out under section 169(1). The failure to set out all of the points for determination was fatal. Regarding the respondent's argument that Kirk Wentworth's witness statement showed the 2nd appellant's dealings with Greenwood Enterprise, the learned counsel submitted that the court attached too much weight to Kirk Wentworth's witness statement, to the detriment of the 2nd appellant. He contended that in terms of section 40 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, chapter 98, the trial court can only convict on such a witness . . . . J36 P.655 statem ent w here no evidence has been adduced by the accused to , rebut the allegations contained in a w itness statem ent received from a foreign state. For this reason, according to counsel, the court fell into grave error by accepting that statem ent as proof in the face of the docum entary evidence produced by the 1 51 appellant in the form of receipts issued to the 2 nd appellant by G reenw ood E nterprises w hich established that the equipm ent w as legitim ately acquired. H e argued that it w as incum bent upon the prosecution to adduce evidence through the evidence of K irk W entw orth as the author of those receipts or other w itnesses in order to disprove the defence. T hat, the prosecution failed to do so. H e urged us to note from the record that the 2 nd appellant denied supplying the garage doors and that the garage doors that w ere at the 2 nd appellant's prem ises and adm itted into evidence as D 49 w ere independent from those the 1 51 appellant purchased from K irk W entw orth's com pany. T he learned counsel argued that it w as clear that the trial court's finding w as based on its assum ption and m istaken belief that the 1 51 appellant w as legally obliged to show the proof of purchase to the investigators in order to rem ove suspicion and defend him self. . . J37 P. 656 Counsel further argued that in the documents produced regarding the bank transactions between Greenwood Enterprises and the company, there was no indication of the 1st appellant's name. He repeated his argument that the 2nd appellant gave undisputed evidence that the payment for the milking equipment was supplied to Lt. Gen Kayumba. The learned counsel replicated his argument under ground three of his heads arguments stating that it was clear that PW4 and PWI3's evidence as well as the documents from Greenwood Enterprises did not prove that the milking tank was imported by the 2nd appellant, nor is there evidence that the garage doors were imported by the 2nd appellant for the 1st appellant. He repeated his argument under his response to ground two that the court erroneously accepted Kirk Wentworth's statement in light of the receipts produced by the 1st appellant, which he claimed were in existence before the witness statement was signed. In response to the heads in reply to ground four, the learned counsel cited a passage in the case of Felon Cholwe v. ZESCO Limited20 . . J38 P.657 arguing that since the lower court was sitting as an appellate court, it was obliged to consider counsel's submissions that the trial court was in breach of section 169 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to counsel, the respondent's argument that the court is not obliged to consider counsels submission is only tenable where the case is at trial level and not on appeal. The learned counsel's reply to the heads of argument in response to ground five was similar in substance to his submission in his heads of arguments. We do not wish to repeat them except to state that he maintained that the prosecution did not adduce evidence to negative the appellants' explanation of how the milking tank was purchased and that the milking equipment was purchased by the 2nd appellant for Lt. Gen. Kayumba. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent had not responded to the arguments advanced by the 2nd appellant under ground six that the lower court erred in holding that the portion of evidence of the PW4 which was in favour of the appellants should not be considered at face value. He reproduced the excerpt from the said . , J 3 9 P.658 h e a d s a n d s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t m a d e n o a t t e m p t t o r e s p o n d t o t h e m . C o u n s e l f o r t h e 2 nd a p p e l l a n t c o n c l u d e d b y p r a y i n g t h a t t h e e n t i r e j u d g m e n t o f t h e l o w e r c o u r t b e q u a s h e d a n d t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t b e a c q u i t t e d a c c o r d i n g l y . W e h a v e c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e e v i d e n c e o n t h e r e c o r d , t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e l o w e r c o u r t a n d t h e e l o q u e n t h e a d s o f a r g u m e n t s a n d s u b m i s s i o n s b y c o u n s e l f o r b o t h p a r t i e s . W e n o t e t h a t t h e g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l a n d h e a d s o f a r g u m e n t f r o m b o t h a p p e l l a n t s ' c o u n s e l r e v e a l r a t h e r r e l a t e d g r i e v a n c e s , e x c e p t f o r a f e w t h a t r e l a t e o n l y t o t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t . I n o r d e r f o r u s t o g i v e a n a l l - r o u n d e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d , w e p r o p o s e t o c o n s i d e r t h e 2 nd a p p e l l a n t 's g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l t o g e t h e r w i t h t h o s e o f t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t t o t h e e x t e n t o f t h e l a t t e r 's r e l e v a n c e t o t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t 's g r i e v a n c e s . A s a l r e a d y a l l u d e d t o , t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t 's c o m p l a i n t u n d e r t h e f i r s t g r o u n d o f a p p e a l i s b a s e d o n t h e l o w e r c o u r t 's h o l d i n g t h a t s e c t i o n 4 9 ( 2 ) o f t h e A n t i - C o r r u p t i o n C o m m i s s i o n A c t i s n o t i n c o n f l i c t w i t h A r t i c l e 1 8 ( 2 ) ( a ) a n d ( 7 ) o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . I n i t s j u d g m e n t , t h e l o w e r .•' i . . _ . I f ' < '.fM '_ J40 P. 659 c o u rt fo u n d th a t u n d e r se c tio n 4 9 (2 ) a n a c c u se d p e rso n d o e s n o t lo se h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to re m a in sile n t b u t is m e re ly re q u ire d to g iv e a sa tisfa c to ry e x p la n a tio n o n c e c h a rg e d w ith a n o ffe n c e u n d e r P a rt IV o f th e A c t, a n d th a t in th e a b se n c e o f su c h a n e x p la n a tio n , th e p re su m p tio n is th a t th e p a y m e n t w a s so lic ita te d , a c c e p te d o r o b ta in e d o r a g re e d to b e a c c e p te d o r o b ta in e d c o rru p tly . T h e 2 n d a p p e lla n t fu rth e r a ssa ile d th e lo w e r c o u rt's re lia n c e o n th e c a se o f Z y a m b o v . T h e P e o p le l, su b m ittin g th a t it w a s irre le v a n t to th e c a se b e fo re u s. T h e issu e ra ise d b y th e 2 nd a p p e lla n t re v o lv e a ro u n d th e p re su m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e in its d e lic a te p ro file s. It is a p rin c ip le firm ly a n c h o re d in A rtic le 1 8 (2 ) (a ) o f o u r C o n stitu tio n a n d re a d s a s fo llo w s: "E v e ry p e rso n w h o is c h a rg e d w ith a c rim in a l o ffe n c e sh a ll b e p re su m e d to b e in n o c e n t u n til h e is p ro v e d o r h a s p le a d e d g u ilty ." T h is fu n d a m e n ta l fa ir tria l p ro v isio n g o e s h a n d in h a n d w ith th a t se t o u t in a rtic le 1 8 (7 ), a s fo llo w s: "A p e rso n w h o is trie d fo r a c rim in a l o ffe n c e sh a ll n o t b e c o m p e lle d to g iv e e v id e n c e a t th e tria l." . . . . J41 P. 660 T h e p re s u m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e e m b o d ie s th e c a rd in a l p rin c ip le o f c rim in a l la w ju ris p ru d e n c e th a t th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f re s ts s q u a re ly o n th e p ro s e c u tio n ; th e s ta te m u s t p ro v e th e a lle g a tio n a g a in s t th e a c c u s e d p e rs o n b e y o n d re a s o n a b le d o u b t. W e h a v e a lre a d y re p ro d u c e d in th is ju d g m e n t th e p ro v is io n s o f s e c tio n 4 9 (2 ) o f th e A n ti-C o rru p tio n C o m m is s io n A c t. It re q u ire s a p e rs o n c h a rg e d u n d e r P a rt IV o f th e A c t to o ffe r a s a tis fa c to ry e x p la n a tio n w h e re it is p ro v e d th a t h e s o lic ite d , a c c e p te d o r o b ta in e d o r a g re e d to a c c e p t o r o b ta in g o o d s , in c irc u m s ta n c e s s e t o u t in th e A c t. Q u ie t c le a rly th e c o n te n tio n h e re is o n e o f in te rp re ta tio n o f th e p ro v is io n s o f th e la w . W e m u s t re s o lv e w h e th e r o r n o t s e c tio n 4 9 (2 ) ta k e s a w a y , fro m th e a c c u s e d p e rs o n , th e p re s u m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e a n d th e rig h t to re m a in s ile n t a s e n s h rin e d u n d e r A rtic le 1 8 . D e s p ite th a t n n g m g p h ra s e o f V is c o u n t S a n k y L C in th e la n d m a rk c a s e o f Woomington v. DPp21, re g a rd in g th a t 'g o ld e n th re a d o f E n g lis h c rim in a l la w ' th e re a re n u m e ro u s d e v e lo p m e n ts th a t w e c a n p o in t to c o n firm in g th a t th e p re s u m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e is n o t c a s t . ; J4 2 P.661 m sto n e , a n d it g IV e s a w a y m a p p ro p ria te c irc u m sta n c e s to a 'p re su m p tio n o f c u lp a b ility ' fo r la c k o f a b e tte r e x p re ssio n . It is a n e le m e n ta ry p o in t th a t p a rlia m e n t h a s n e v e r b e e n a v e rse to c re a tin g sta tu to ry e x c e p tio n s th a t c a st th e b u rd e n o n th e a c c u se d p e rso n to d isp ro v e h is c u lp a b ility . F o r e x a m p le , o u r p e n a l c o d e h a s g iv e n re c o g n itio n to th e p rin c ip le o f re c e n t p o sse ssio n . In c irc u m sta n c e s w h e re a p e rso n is fo u n d to b e in p o sse ssio n o f g o o d s re a so n a b ly su sp e c te d to h a v e b e e n sto le n , h e o r sh e w ill b e e x p e c te d to o ffe r a n e x p la n a tio n . In o th e r w o rd s, th e re w ill b e a p re su m p tio n th a t th e g o o d s w e re sto le n b y th a t p e rso n u n le ss h e p ro v e s h is in n o c e n c e . T h e c a se o f Zonde & Others v. The P e o p le 2 2 is in stru c tiv e in th is re g a rd . S e c tio n 4 9 (2 ) o f th e re p e a le d A n ti-C o rru p tio n C o m m issio n A c t c a p . 9 1 , is su b sta n tia lly re p lic a te d in th e n e w A c t, th e A n ti- C o rru p tio n A c t N o .3 o f 2 0 1 2 . M o re re c e n tly in The People v. Austine Chisangu L ia to 2 3 w e in te rp re te d se c tio n 7 1 (2 ) o f th e F o rfe itu re o f P ro c e e d s o f C rim e A c t N o . 1 9 o f 2 0 1 0 a s re v e rsin g , to a c e rta in e x te n t, th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f in m a tte rs in v o lv in g fo rfe itu re o f p ro c e e d s o f c rim e . , . J43 P. 662 B e a r i n g i n m i n d t h e s u p r e m a c y o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , i t g o e s w i t h o u t s a y i n g t h a t a n y s u b s i d i a r y l e g i s l a t i o n , b e i t t h e P e n a l C o d e , t h e A n t i - C o r r u p t i o n A c t o r t h e F o r f e i t u r e o f P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e A c t , t h a t p r o v i d e s f o r a n y s h i f t i n t h e e v i d e n t i a r y b u r d e n m u s t s t i l l a c c o r d w i t h A r t i c l e 1 8 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , o r i t w i l l b e v o i d f o r b e i n g i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n . W e h a v e e x a m i n e d t h e p r o v I s I O n s o f A r t i c l e 1 8 ( 2 ) w h i c h g u a r a n t e e s t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f i n n o c e n c e . W e a g r e e t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n e n t a i l s t h a t a n a c c u s e d p e r s o n c a n n o t b e c a l l e d u p o n t o i n c r i m i n a t e h i m o r h e r s e l f b y v o l u n t e e r i n g e v i d e n c e f a v o u r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n 's c a s e o n d e m a n d . T h e p r o s e c u t i o n m u s t p r o v e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s . T h e r e q u i r e m e n t u n d e r s e c t i o n 4 9 ( 2 ) o f t h e A n t i - C o r r u p t i o n C o m m i s s i o n A c t m a y i n d e e d a p p e a r t o c o n t r a v e n e a r t i c l e 1 8 ( 2 ) o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a s t h e l e a r n e d c o ; u n s e l f o r t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t . p e r c e I v e s I t . . T h a t p e r c e p t I O n I S . . h h o w e v e r - 1 u s w e w e n o n e c o n S l e r s 'd 'n'J iUfIJ,D {'" t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f A r t i c l e 1 8 ( 1 2 ) o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n w h i c h r e a d s - "Nothing contained or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of paragraph (a) of clause 2 to the extent that it is shown that the law in question < • . . J 4 4 P.663 imposes upon any person charged with a criminal offence the burden of proving particular facts." W e m u s t a d d t h a t t h e s h i f t i n g o f t h e e v i d e n t i a l b u r d e n a n d t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f i n s o m e c a s e s i s n o t a p h e n o m e n o n p e c u l i a r t o Z a m b i a . T h e e s s e n c e o f t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f i n n o c e n c e i s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t t h e a c c u s e d p e r s o n i s g u i l t y , f a i l u r e o f w h i c h w o u l d w a r r a n t a n a c q u i t t a l . T h e q u e s t i o n t h e r e f o r e i s ; d o e s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f s h i f t o n t o t h e a c c u s e d p e r s o n i f h e i s r e q u i r e d t o g i v e a n e x p l a n a t i o n ? I n o u r c o n s i d e r e d v i e w , m e r e l y b e i n g c a l l e d u p o n t o o f f ~ r a n e x p l a n a t i o n d o e s n o t a m o u n t t o b e i n g r e q u e s t e d t o p r o v e t h a t o n e i s i n n o c e n t . T o b e g i n w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f o r t h e a c c u s e d t o g i v e a n e x p l a n a t i o n u n d e r s e c t i o n 4 9 ( 2 ) e m a n a t e s f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s a l r e a d y p r o o f t h a t h e h a d s o l i c i t e d , o b t a i n e d , o r a c c e p t e d a p a y m e n t , w h i c h c r e a t e s a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t h e d i d s o c o r r u p t l y . T h e s e c t i o n t h e r e f o r e , c r e a t e s a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t i f h e f a i l s t o g i v e a s a t i s f a c t o r y a n s w e r , t h e n h e m u s t h a v e r e c e i v e d , s o l i c i t e d , o b t a i n e d , o r a c c e p t e d t h e p a y m e n t , c o r r u p t l y . I n t h e f a c e o f s u c h a n a l l e g a t i o n , t h e a c c u s e d h a s t h e r i g h t a n d n o t a n o b l i g a t i o n , t o e x p l a i n h i s p o s i t i o n . T h e a c c u s e d p e r s o n , . . J45 P. 664 thus still m aintains his right to rem am silent. A t this stage the prosecution has not established that the accused person is guilty; the burden to prove so still rem ains on it to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused person still is presum ed innocent until such a burden has been discharged by the prosecution. In K e n io u s S ia lu z i v . T h e P e o p le 2 4 w e said that the appellant's silence did not change the burden of proof cast on the prosecution to prove his guilt , beyond all reasonable doubt because there w as no burden of proof cast on him to prove any particular fact. B ut if he does elect to rem ain silent, w hich he is entitled to, the court w ill not speculate as to possible explanations for the event in question. The court's duty is to draw the proper inference from w hatever evidence it has before it. In S im u t e n d a v . T h e P e o p le 1 7 w e held that- " A n a c c u s e d p e r s o n is b y la w e n t it le d t o r e m a in s ile n t in C o u r t . I f h o w e v e r h e w is h e s t o r e ly o n a n y p a r t ic u la r d e f e n c e , it s h a ll b e in c u m b e n t u p o n h im t o a d d u c e e v id e n c e t o s u p p o r t s u c h a d e f e n c e ." C ounsel relied heavily on the H igh C ourt case of R e T h o m a s M u m b a 2 in w hich the court found section 53 of the C orrupt Practices A ct N o. 14 of 1980 to have been unconstitutional. This provision . , J 4 6 P. 665 c o m p e lle d th e a c c u s e d p e r s o n w h o e le c te d to g iv e e v id e n c e b e f o r e c o u r t to d o s o o n o a th . T h e c o n s titu tio n a l p r o v is io n w h ic h w a s h e ld to h a v e b e e n c o n tr a v e n e d g a v e th e a c c u s e d p e r s o n th e r ig h t to r e m a in s ile n t. C le a r ly s e c tio n 5 3 r e f e r r e d to a n a c c u s e d p e r s o n w h o , in th e .. f ir s t p la c e , h a s th e r ig h t to b e s ile n t b u t h a s o p te d to g iv e e v id e n c e b u t is c o m p e lle d to g iv e th a t e v id e n c e o n o a th . W e d o n o t f in d th e c a s e o f Re Thomas Mumba2 to b e o f a n y a s s is ta n c e to th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t's a r g u m e n t. B e in g o f th a t p e r s u a s io n , w e h o ld th a t g r o u n d o n e h a s n o m e r it a n d w e d is m is s it. W e n o w c o n s id e r g r o u n d tw o . T h e 2 n d a p p e lla n t's c o n te n tio n is th a t th e p r o s e c u tio n d id n o t e s ta b lis h a ll th e e le m e n ts o f th e o f f e n c e u n d e r c o u n ts th r e e a n d f o u r a n d th a t th e r e f o r e , th e lo w e r c o u r t m is d ir e c te d its e lf in h o ld in g th a t th e tr ia l c o u r t w a s o n f ir m g r o u n d s in c o n v ic tin g th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t o n th o s e c o u n ts . T h e tw o c o u n ts r e la te to th e g iv in g b y th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t a n d th e r e c e iv in g b y th e 1 5 1 a p p e lla n t o f th e tw o g a r a g e d o o r s . T h e le a r n e d c o u n s e l f o r th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t a r g u e d th a t th e tr ia l c o u r t, in s u m m a r iz in g th e p o in ts f o r d e te r m in a tio n u n d e r th e s e . . . . J47 P.666 c o u n ts, d id n o t sta te a ll th e in g re d ie n ts o f th e o ffe n c e w h ic h th e p ro se c u tio n n e e d e d to e sta b lish . It w a s a lle g e d th a t th e tria l c o u rt w a s in c o n tra v e n tio n o f se c tio n 1 6 9 (1 ) o f th e C rim in a l P ro c e d u re C o d e . T h is se c tio n sta te s a s fo llo w s: "The judgm ent in every trial in any court shall, except as otherw ise expressly provided by this C ode, be prepared by the presiding officer of the court and shall contain the point or points for determ ination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision, and shall be dated and signed by the presiding officer in open court at the tim e of pronouncing it." W e h a v e p e ru se d th e ju d g m e n t o f th e tria l c o u rt. A t p a g e 1 1 o f th e sa id ju d g m e n t th e c o u rt c o n sid e re d c o u n ts th re e a m o n g o th e rs, a n d sta te d a s fo llo w s: "To prove the offences under these five counts the prosecution m ust establish that at the tim e in question; (1) The accused w as a public officer; (2) W ho either by him self, or by or in conjunction w ith any other person; (3) C orruptly solicited, accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attem pted to receive or obtain; (4) From any person for him self or for any other person; (5) A ny gratification; • • . . J48 P.667 ( 6 ) A s a n i n d u c e m e n t o r r e w a r d f o r d o i n g o r f o r b e a r i n g t o d o , o r f o r h a v i n g d o n e o r f o r b o r n e t o d o a n y t h i n g i n r e l a t i o n t o a n y m a t t e r o r t r a n s a c t i o n a c t u a l o r p r o p o s e d ; ( 7 ) W i t h w h i c h a n y p u b l i c b o d y i s o r m a y b e c o n c e r e d . T h e a b o v e a r e t h e i n g r e d i e n t s o f t h e o f f e n c e s i n c o u n t s 3 , 5 , 7 , 9 a n d l l t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n m u s t e s t a b l i s h i n o r d e r t o p r o v e t h e g u i l t o f t h e f i r s t a p p e l l a n t . " A t p a g e 1 3 o f t h e s a m e j u d g m e n t , t h e l e a r n e d m a g i s t r a t e s t a t e d a s f o l l o w s : " W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e s e c o n d a c c u s e d w h o s t a n d s c h a r g e d u n d e r c o u n t s 4 , 6 , 8 , 1 0 a n d 1 2 , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n m u s t e s t a b l i s h e a c h a n d e v e r y i n g r e d i e n t o f t h e o f f e n c e s c h a r g e d . A l l t h e c o u n t s c h a r g e d t h e s e c o n d a c c u s e d w i t h c o r r u p t p r a c t i c e s w i t h a p u b l i c o f f i c e r ( a r i s i n g f r o m d i f f e r e n t f a c t s ) c o n t r a r y t o s e c t i o n 2 9 ( 2 ) a n d s e c t i o n 4 1 o f t h e A c t . . . . . T o p r o v e t h i s o f f e n c e t h e p r o s e c u t i o n m u s t p r o v e e a c h a n d e v e r y i n g r e d i e n t a n d a s s u c h m u s t e s t a b l i s h t h a t - ( 1 ) A 2 b y h i m s e l f o r b y o r i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a n y o t h e r p e r s o n ( 2 ) C o r r u p t l y g a v e , p r o m i s e d o r o f f e r e d ( 3 ) A n y g r a t i f i c a t i o n t o ( 4 ) A n y p u b l i c o f f i c e r A l i n t h i s c a s e ( 5 ) W h e t h e r f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f A l o r a n y o t h e r p u b l i c o f f i c e r ( 6 ) A s a n i n d u c e m e n t o r r e w a r d f o r d o i n g o r f o r b e a r i n g t o d o a n y t h i n g i n r e l a t i o n t o a n y m a t t e r o r t r a n s a c t i o n , a c t u a l o r p r o p o s e d ( 7 ) W i t h w h i c h a n y p u b l i c b o d y i s o r m a y b e c o n c e r n e d . " .• ;; J 4 9 P. 668 W e f i n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n i t s j u d g m e n t d i d s t a t e t h e i n g r e d i e n t s o f t h e o f f e n c e t o b e p r o v e d b y t h e p r o s e c u t i o n a n d w e n t f u r t h e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h o s e e l e m e n t s w i t h t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e i n a r r i v i n g a t i t s r e a s o n e d d e c i s i o n . W e a g r e e w i t h M r . M a s e m p e l a t h a t i t w a s u n n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e c o u r t t o r e p l a c e w o r d s i n t h e s t a t u t e w i t h t h e w o r d s i n t h e f a c t s o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r s o f t h e o f f e n c e . T h e c o u r t ' s a n a l y s i s o f t h e p o i n t s f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n w a s c l e a r l y i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e c o u n t s a n d p a r t i c u l a r s i n t h e c h a r g e s h e e t . T h e t r i a l c o u r t h a v i n g s t a t e d t h e p a r t i c u l a r s o f t h e o f f e n c e f o r t h e c h a r g e s a n d i n g r e d i e n t s o f t h e o f f e n c e , a n d w h i c h p o i n t s i t c o n s i d e r e d i n m a k i n g i t s d e c i s i o n , s a t i s f i e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s u n d e r s e c t i o n 1 5 9 ( 1 ) . W e , t h e r e f o r e , c a n n o t f a u l t t h e l o w e r c o u r t f o r h a v i n g u p h e l d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n v i c t i o n o n c o u n t s t h r e e a n d f o u r . F o r t h e r e a s o n s w e h a v e s t a t e d , t h i s a r g u m e n t h a s n o m e r i t a n d w e d i s m i s s i t . T h e s e c o n d g r i e v a n c e r a i s e d b y t h e 2 nd a p p e l l a n t u n d e r t h i s g r o u n d , i s t h a t t h e c o u r t b e l o w m i s d i r e c t e d i t s e l f i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t w a s o n f i r m g r o u n d s i n c o n v i c t i n g t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t . I n c o u n s e l ' s v i e w , t h e l o w e r c o u r t i n c o m i n g t o i t s c o n c l u s i o n . . . . J50 P.669 misapprehended the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the acquisition of the garage doors which were found at the premises of the 1st appellant and produced in court as P64. It was argued that as a consequence of this misapprehension, the lower court upheld the trial court's finding that the prosecution established their case beyond reasonable doubt as regards these counts. The crux of the contention is that the 2nd appellant denied having purchased the garage doors for the 1st appellant as the garage doors which were at the 1st appellant's Kalundu house were purchased by the 1st appellant himself from Greenwood Enterprises on 10th January 2002. According to counsel, the 1st appellant had produced, as proof ofthe purchase, a receipt dated 10thJanuary 2002 and exhibited as 'D33'. The evidence of PW13 and PW15, as the investigation officers who interviewed the appellant regarding the purchase of the garage doors, was crucial to the lower court's findings. We do not appreciate counsel's submission that the evidence of PW15 was hearsay as he did not witness the purchase and the installation of the garage doors. J51 P . 6 7 0 P W 1 5 w as testify in g in h is cap acity as an o fficer w h o in v estig ated th e acq u isitio n , im p o rtatio n an d in stallatio n o f th e said d o o rs. H is testim o n y is b ased o n th at in v estig atio n . In an y case, th e arg u m en ts h ere are attack in g th e fin d in g s o f fact b efo re th e trial co u rt. W e h av e o n m an y o ccasio n s co n sid ered th e circu m stan ces u n d er w h ich an ap p ellate co u rt co u ld an d sh o u ld rev erse fin d in g s o f fact o f a trial ju d g e. S o m e o f th ese cases are P h i r i a n d O t h e r s v . T h e P e o p l e 2 5 an d D i r e c t o r o f P u b lic P r o s e c u t i o n s v . N g a n d u 2 6 . W h at w e said in th ese cases is to th e effect th at an ap p ellate co u rt, w h ich o n ly h as th e tran scrip t o f ev id en ce b efo re it, an d w h ich d o es n o t h av e th e ad v an tag e th at th e trial ju d g e h ad o f seein g an d h earin g th e w itn esses, sh o u ld n o t lig h tly in terfere w ith fin d in g s o f th e trial ju d g e. T h is is th e p o sitio n o f th e law an d w e ab id e b y it. T h e m ain co n ten tio n , as w e see it, is o n th e cred ib ility o f th e p ro secu tio n w itn esses as ag ain st th e d efen ce w itn esses. In Lemmy B w a l y a S h u l a v . T h e P e o p l e , 2 7 fo llo w in g o u r h o ld in g in C h i z o n d e v . T h e P e o p l e 2 8 , w e h eld th at an ad v erse fin d in g as to cred it is a fin d in g th at th e w itn ess is n o t to b e b eliev ed . S u ch a fin d in g is in tu rn o n e o f th e • ';0 J52 P. 671 factors which will influence the court in its decision as to which of two conflicting versions of an affair it will accept, and that such a finding as to credit m ay be based, for instance, on discrepancies if). the witnesses evidence or on a previous inconsistent statem ent or on proved bad character or an evasive dem eanor and so on. If a finding as to credit is based on dem eanor, such finding cannot be supported in the absence of evidence on record. W e have taken note that in resolving the conflicting evidence before it, the trial court did point out the weaknesses of the appellants' evidence and the reasons for accepting the prosecution witness' evidence. As rightly pointed out by the lower court, the record shows that there was evidence before the trial court that garage doors were purchased from Kirk W entworth as confirm ed in, P74, Kirk W entworth's witness statem ent and that evidence was adduced that the com pany m ade paym ents for the purchase of the garage doors for which export docum ents were invoiced directly to the 1st appellant as Arm y Com m ander by a docum ent date 21 st M ay, 2001. In sum m ation the trial court accepted the evidence of the . ',; . . J53 P. 672 prosecution witnesses and rejected the evidence of the appellants regarding 'D33'. It does not seem to us from the record that there was a misapprehension of the evidence of the appellants by the lower court. Its findings were on a proper and well-balanced view of the whole of the evidence on the record before it. The additional arguments by counsel for 1st appellant equally attack the findings of the lower court on the issue of the garage doors. The twist to the argument here is that the evidence of PW 13 was contradictory, hence the court should have resolved the conflict in favour of the appellants. W hat counsel was referring to was PW 13's statement in cross examination as reflected in the record of appeal, when he said- "Wentworth mentioned that he supplied accused 1 with security gates. He said he supplied one garage gate to accused 1 which was paid for by accused 2." And at page 201 when he said- "I did not establish that P68 was imported by accused 2 for accused 1. 1 established this circumstantially" . . J 5 4 P.673 W h a t is c le a r is th a t P W 1 3 's in v e s tig a tio n s r e v e a le d to h im th a t th e g a r a g e d o o r s w e r e s u p p lie d b y K ir k W e n tw o r th to th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t, a n d th a t th e s a m e w e r e p a id f o r b y th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t th r o u g h th e c o m p a n y a n d c o n s ig n e d to th e 1s t a p p e lla n t. A n d h is c o n c lu s io n w a s d r a w n f r o m th e to ta lity o f th e e v id e n c e g a th e r e d d u r in g in v e s tig a tio n s , f r o m w h ic h th e le a r n e d tr ia l m a g is tr a te d r e w h e r c o n c lu s io n s . W e s e e n o c o n tr a d ic tio n in P W I 3 's te s tim o n y . W e d o n o t s e e h o w th e a r g u m e n t a d v a n c e d b y c o u n s e l a s s is ts th e 2 nd a p p e lla n t, b e c a u s e , c le a r ly c o u n s e l d e lib e r a te ly is o la te d P W I 3 's s ta te m e n t f r o m th e to ta lity o f th e e v id e n c e . A s w e h a v e a lr e a d y p o in te d o u t, th e r e is n o d is p u te th a t g a r a g e d o o r s w e r e p u r c h a s e d b y th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t. W h a t w a s in d is p u te w a s w h e th e r th e g a r a g e d o o r s f o u n d a t th e 1 s t a p p e lla n t's p r e m is e s b y P W I 3 a n d P W I 5 w e r e th e s a m e o n e s p u r c h a s e d b y th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t th r o u g h h is c o m p a n y a n d d e liv e r e d to th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t o r w e r e o th e r w is e p u r c h a s e d th r o u g h D 3 3 a s e v id e n c e d b y th e a p p e lla n ts . W e h a v e a lr e a d y s ta te d th a t th e w h o le is s u e is o n th e c r e d ib ility o f th e w itn e s s e s , w h ic h p o in t w e h a v e a lr e a d y d e te r m in e d . B a s e d o n o u r h o ld in g e a r lie r , th is a r g u m e n t h a s . . J55 P.674 no merit. In our view, the lower court had no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court. We dismiss ground two in its entirety. We now turn to ground three which attacks the lower court's holding that there was overwhelming evidence to convict the 2nd appellant on count six. The point taken by counsel was that the prosecution did not prove that the milking tank which was retrieved by PW13 and PW15 from the 1st appellant's Makeni farm and produced as P68 was imported by the 2nd appellant for the 1st appellant. He forcefully argued that the milking machines which were imported by the 2nd appellant from Kirk Wentworth did not include a milking tank which PW13 referred to in his testimony, in that by definition the term 'milk machines' is not synonymous to milking tanks. Having gone through the entire record and seen the documents produced before the trial court, we observe that it is not in dispute that following investigations conducted by PW13 and PW15, milking equipment, including a milking tank marked as P68, were recovered at the 1st appellant's in-laws in Chisamba. The dispute, as we see it, J56 P . 6 7 5 w a s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e m i l k i n g t a n k r e t r i e v e d f r o m t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t w a s t h a t w h i c h w a s p u r c h a s e d b y t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t t h r o u g h t h e c o m p a n y . H e n c e t h e q u e s t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e u n d e r t h i s g r o u n d i s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e r e w a s o v e r w h e l m i n g e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t P 6 8 w a s p u r c h a s e d b y t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t t h r o u g h t h e c o m p a n y ; a n d w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e l o w e r c o u r t w a s o n f i r m g r o u n d s f o r n o t i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h o s e f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . W e r e m i n d o u r s e l v e s a g a i n t h a t t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s h o u l d n o t l i g h t l y i n t e r f e r e w i t h f i n d i n g s o f f a c t . I n L u n g u v . T h e P e o p l e 2 9 w e s t a t e d t h a t - " w h e n o n e c o m e s t o a n i n f e r e n c e o f f a c t w h i c h i s n o t a m a t t e r o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e , b u t i s a q u e s t i o n o f o r d i n a r y l o g i c , t h e p o s i t i o n s e e m s t o u s t o b e f a r c l e a r e r ; i n s u c h c a s e s t h e i n f e r e n c e i s a c o n c l u s i o n a r r i v e d a t f r o m a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e p r i m a r y f a c t s , a n d t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s i t s e l f o n e o f f a c t . S u c h a c o n c l u s i o n w i l l o n l y b e s e t a s i d e b y a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i f i t h a s b e e n a r r i v e d a t ' w i t h o u t a n y e v i d e n c e , o r o n a v i e w o f t h e f a c t s w h i c h c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y b e e n t e r t a i n e d . " F u r t h e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t w h i c h h a d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o V I e w t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s h a s a d v a n t a g e o v e r t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a n d . . J57 w o u ld o n ly o v e rtu rn a d e c isio n m a d e b y th a t tria l c o u rt if su c h fin d in g s w e re m a d e w ith o u t a n y e v id e n c e o r o n th e w ro n g a p p re h e n sio n o f fa c ts. In E n o tia d e s v . T h e P e o p le 3 0 , it w a s sta te d a s P .6 7 6 fo llo w s: "W h e n a s o fte n h a p p e n s m u c h tu rn s o n th e re la tiv e c re d ib ility o f w itn e s s e s w h o h a v e b e e n e x a m in e d a n d c ro s s e x a m in e d b e fo re th e ju d g e , th e C o u rt is s e n s ib le o f th e g re a t a d v a n ta g e h e h a s h a d in s e e in g a n d h e a rin g th e m , it is o fte n v e ry d iffic u lt to e s tim a te c o rre c tly th e re la tiv e c re d ib ility o f th e w itn e s s e s fro m w ritte n d is p o s itio n s ; a n d w h e n th e q u e s tio n a ris e s w h ic h w itn e s s is to b e b e lie v e d ra th e r th a n a n o th e r a n d th a t q u e s tio n tu rn s o n m a n n e r a n d d e m e a n o r, th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l a lw a y s is a n d m u s t b e g u id e d b y th e im p re s s io n m a d e o n th e ju d g e w h o s a w th e w itn e s s e s . B u t th e re m a y o b v io u s ly b e o th e r c irc u m s ta n c e s q u ite a p a rt fro m m a n n e r a n d d e m e a n o r w h ic h m a y s h o w w h e th e r a s ta te m e n t is c re d ib le o r n o t a n d th e s e c irc u m s ta n c e s m a y w a rra n t th e C o u rt in d iffe rin g fro m th e ju d g e e v e n o n q u e s tio n o f fa c t tu rn in g o n th e c re d ib ility o f w itn e s s e s w h o m th e C o u rt h a d n o t s e e n ." W e m u st, th e re fo re , d e te rm in e if th e fin d in g s w e re m a d e w ith o u t a n y e v id e n c e o r o n th e w ro n g a p p re h e n sio n o f fa c ts o r if th e re w e re a n y c irc u m sta n c e s a p a rt fro m c re d ib ility o f th e w itn e sse s th a t m a y h a v e w a rra n te d th e lo w e r c o u rt to d iffe r fro m th e tria l c o u rt's J58 P.677 findings. The evidence before the trial court was that P74 revealed that milk equipment, including milking tanks, were purchased from Greenwood Enterprises on behalf of the 1st appellant by the company sometime 1ll 2001. Further, the invoice for milking machines produced 1ll the record of appeal which is to the value of US$18,875.00 included milking tanks. PW lO, the Barclays Bank's Corporation M anager's assistant confirmed the payment of US$18,875.00 made through a bank draft to Greenwood Enterprise by the company. P64 was the Bill of Export, dated 26th June 2001, indicating the exportation of the same equipment to the 1st appellant. In the face of such overwhelming evidence as to the purchase and importation of the equipment, the appellants were placed in a position of defending themselves. According to the 1st appellant's testimony, he bought the milking tank from Kirk W entworth in 2002, while the 2nd appellant totally denied his involvement in the purchase of the tank. The trial court here was faced with a duty to assess the evidence and draw an inference from the facts before it as well as consider the credibility of all the witnesses before it. W e find that . , . . J59 P.678 there was no misapprehension of facts by the trial court hence the lower court had no basis upon which to overturn that decision. The learned counsel further argued that the appellants proved on the balance of probabilities that they did not commit the offences. We do not agree with that submission. The record shows that other than denying the allegations, the 1st appellant sought to persuade the trial court to believe that P68 was bought in 2002, and that the tank found at the 1st appellant's in-laws's premises was not a milking tank. The learned counsel further brought into contention that a milking tank worth US$2,500.00 was not mentioned in the documents before court. However, we note from the evidence of both PW13 and PW15 that in addition to P68 they referred to a number of milking equipment that was found already assembled at the 1st appellant's Makeni farm. The trial court found that the two witnesses were not experts in milking equipment and were thus not expected to give the specific details of such equipment. Thus, the trial court rightly considered that the appellant's testimony fell short of casting any doubt upon the prosecution's evidence. We must state here that . - J60 P. 679 the evidence from both parties is to be w eighed against each other. It is evident from the record, and w e cannot deny that the trial court thoroughly review ed and took into account evidence of both parties in arriving at its decision. W e are satisfied that the trial court w as on firm grounds to have rejected the appellants' defence and convicted them on the basis of the evidence before it. W e, therefore, agree w ith the low er court for having upheld the trial court's findings. W e believe that the trial court m eticulously review ed the evidence before it and found that the 1st appellant failed to give a reasonable explanation of how he acquired the m ilking tank. In light of the evidence from the prosecution w itnesses as w e have explained it, w e do not find any reason to overturn the low er court's holding under this ground. G round three, therefore, has no m erit. G iven w hat w e have stated already, ground three of the 1 st ... appellant's grounds of appeal as it relates to count five and six equally has not m erit. . . J 6 1 P. 680 G r o u n d f o u r i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o g r o u n d t w o . T h e l e a r n e d c o u n s e l a l l e g e d t h a t t h e l o w e r c o u r t c o n t r a v e n e d s e c t i o n 1 6 9 ( 1 ) o f t h e C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e C o d e b y i t s f a i l u r e t o a d j u d i c a t e o v e r t h e 2 nd a p p e l l a n t 's g r i e v a n c e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h e m a t t e r w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i n g i n i t s j u d g m e n t w h a t p o i n t s w e r e t o b e p r o v e d b y t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , a n d f u r t h e r t h a t i t d i d n o t g i v e r e a s o n s f o r n o t a c c e p t i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t s d e f e n c e w i t h r e g a r d s t o c o u n t s i x . T h e g r o u n d i n t h e l o w e r c o u r t w a s c o u c h e d a s f o l l o w s : " T h e c o u r t b e l o w m i s d i r e c t e d i t s e l f i n l a w w h e n i t f a i l e d t o s t a t e t h e r e a s o n s w h y t h e c o u r t h a d e l e c t e d n o t t o a c c e p t t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e 1 s t a c c u s e d a n d 2 n d a c c u s e d i n r e b u t t a l t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n c o u n t 6 . " I n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e i s s u e r a i s e d b e f o r e i t , t h e l o w e r c o u r t i n i t s j u d g m e n t , h a d t h i s t o s a y - " W e f i n d t h a t t h e l e a r n e d m a g i s t r a t e ' s f i n d i n g s w e r e n o t p e r v e r s e a s s h e g a v e r e a s o n s o n h o w s h e a r r i v e d a t h e r d e c i s i o n . " T h e l o w e r c o u r t t h e n w e n t f u r t h e r t o q u o t e f r o m t h e t r i a l c o u r t 's j u d g m e n t a p o r t i o n w h e r e i t m a d e a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t b o u g h t e q u i p m e n t f o r t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t t h r o u g h t h e c o m p a n y . T o u s t h i s w a s s u f f i c i e n t t o d e a l w i t h t h e c o n c e r n s r a i s e d b y t h e 2 n d . - J62 P.681 a p p e lla n t in th is g ro u n d a n d w e h a v e n o in te n tio n s o f u p se ttin g th e fin d in g . T h is g ro u n d o f a p p e a l th e re fo re h a s n o m e rit. T h e a rg u m e n ts u n d e r g ro u n d fiv e o rig in a te fro m c o u n ts fiv e six , e le v e n a n d tw e lv e . T h e le a rn e d tria l m a g istra te c o n sid e re d th e se to g e th e r a s th e y w e re fro m th e sa m e tra risa c tio n ; th a t is; th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t g iv in g th e 1st a p p e lla n t a m ilk in g ta n k a n d m ilk in g e q u ip m e n t a s g ra tific a tio n fo r e n g a g in g th e c o m p a n y 's se rv ic e s. W e h a v e a lre a d y d e a lt w ith th e 2 n d a p p e lla n t's d isc o n te n t re g a rd in g th e tria l c o u rt's h o ld in g in c o u n ts fiv e a n d six , u n d e r g ro u n d th re e . T h e re fo re , w e w ill re stric t o u rse lv e s to c o u n se l's c o n te n tio n in re la tio n to c o u n ts e le v e n a n d tw e lv e , th e g ist o f w h ic h is th a t th e lo w e r c o u rt m isd ire c te d itse lf in h o ld in g th a t th e tria l c o u rt's fin d in g s w e re n o t p e rv e rse . C o u n se l a rg u e d th a t th e p ro se c u tio n d id n o t a d d u c e e v id e n c e to p ro v e th e ir c a se o r n e g a tiv e th e e v id e n c e o f th e a p p e lla n ts o n h o w th e m ilk in g e q u ip m e n t w a s a c q u ire d . F u rth e rm o re th a t, th e tria l c o u rt w a s la b o u rin g u n d e r th e im p re ssio n th a t th e a p p e lla n ts w e re o b lig e d to p ro d u c e a ll th e . . J63 P. 682 relevant docum ents that w ere intended to be relied on at trial to the investigations officer. T he record show s various transactions and docum ents connecting the appellants to the purchase of the m ilking equipm ent. T hese w ere part of P 74 and are in the record of appeal. A m ong them w ere; em ails exchanged betw een the com pany and G reenw ood E nterprises betw een 18 th A pril, and 20 th A pril, 2001 over the purchase of m ilking equipm ent w hich w ere intended to be consigned to the 1st appellant; an invoice for m ilking equipm ent w orth U S $18,000 w hich w as invoiced to the 1 st appellant on 7 th M ay, 2001; a bank draft of U S $18,000, P 22 dated 18 th M ay 2001 w hich w as signed by the 2 nd appellant, being a paym ent for m ilking equipm ent by the 2 nd appellant; the N edbank docum ents show ing the paym ent of the sam e am ount of U S $18,000 as show n on the bank draft; and export docum ents dated 24 th M ay, 2001 and another dated 26 th June, 2001, for m ilking equipm ent from G reenw ood E nterprises to the 1st appellant in his capacity as A rm y C om m ander. C oincidentally, various m ilking equipm ent w ere found at the 1st appellants prem ises during investigations. U nder the w eight of such evidence counsel .- J64 P .683 a rg u e d th a t d u rin g th e ir d e fe n c e th e a p p e lla n ts e x p la in e d h o w th e m ilk in g e q u ip m e n t w a s a c q u ire d a n d th a t th e a p p e lla n ts w e re n o t re q u ire d to g iv e a n e x p la n a tio n a t th e e a rlie st o p p o rtu n e tim e . W e h a v e a lre a d y c o v e re d th is p a rt o fth e a rg u m e n t a n d w e a g re e th a t th e re is n o la w th a t re q u ire s a n a c c u se d p e rso n to a v a il, to th e in v e stig a tio n o ffic e r, d o c u m e n ts w h ic h h e in te n d s to re ly o n a t tria l. B u t, w e w ish to e m p h a sise th a t a s m u c h a s th e a p p e lla n ts h a d n o b u rd e n to p ro v e th e ir in n o c e n c e , th e ir fa ilu re to o ffe r a sa tisfa c to ry e x p la n a tio n w a s to th e ir o w n d e trim e n t. M o re o v e r, d e sp ite th e e x iste n c e o f D 3 3 o n w h ic h th e a p p e lla n t so le ly re lie d fo r th e ir d e fe n c e , th e re w a s o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e th a t m ilk in g e q u ip m e n t w a s p u rc h a se d p rio r to 2 0 0 2 . T h e tria l c o u rt sc ru p u lo u sly e x a m in e d th e se p ie c e s o f e v id e n c e a n d c a m e to th e c o n c lu sio n th a t- " H avin g said all th at, I fin d th at w h en p age 11 an d 2 of P 74 are read togeth er w ith P 22, P 38 an d p age 7 of P 64 th ere is n o d ou b t th at A 2 b ou gh t th e eq u ip m en t for A l th rou gh B ase C h em icals. U p on con sid eration of th e p rosecu tion evid en ce an d h avin g n ot b een p rovid ed w ith reason ab le exp lan ation from th e d efen ce I am satisfied th at th e ch arge u n d er cou n ts 5, 6, 11 an d 12 h ave b een estab lish ed again st A l an d A 2 b eyon d all reason ab le d ou b t." . . J65 P.684 For our part, we are satisfied that the trial court correctly came to the conclusion that proof beyond reasonable doubt of the appellants' guilt had been attained. We, therefore, have no intention whatsoever of disturbing the finding of the lower court in upholding the trial court's findings regarding counts eleven and twelve. This ground is bound to fail. We now turn to ground six of the appeal. The learned counsel impeached the lower court's holding that the evidence of PW4 regarding the purchase of the steel structures should not be taken on face value. We have looked at the reasoning advanced by the lower court for its holding and also the relevant portions of PW4'testimony from the record of appeal. According to the testimony of PW4, between June and October 2001, he constructed a steel structure for a milk parlour at the 1st appellant's Makeni farm and that the steel frames, together with other materials he used were supplied by the 2nd appellant through the company. Throughout his testimony in chief, PW4 repeatedly mentioned the 2nd appellant as having provided the . " J 6 6 P. 685 s t e e l s t r u c t u r e s a n d t h e b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s . H e i n f a c t s t a t e d t h a t h e h a d b e e n c a l l e d b y t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t t o i n s p e c t t h e s a m e s t e e l s t r u c t u r e s a t t h e t i m e t h e y h a d j u s t b e e n d e l i v e r e d a t t h e c o m p a n y 's r e g i s t e r e d p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s . F r o m c o u n s e l 's a r g u m e n t w e f a t h o m t h a t t h e b o n e o f c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t a t s o m e p o i n t i n c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n P W 4 s t a t e d t h a t t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t c o n f i r m e d t o h i m t h a t h e p a i d t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e s t e e l s t r u c t u r e s a n d b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s f o r h i s p r o j e c t s . H i s a r g u m e n t i s t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e s h o u l d h a v e b e e n a c c e p t e d a n d r e l i e d o n b y t h e c o u r t i n s u p p o r t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t 's d e f e n c e . T h e l e a r n e d c o u n s e l e x t r a c t s o f P W 4 's s t a t e m e n t a r e a s f o l l o w s : "I do know whether accused 2 was getting money for supplies from Gen. Kayumba." "The only time 1 discussed something with accused lwas when works at his farm were going on slowly and he was concerned. He complained and said accused 2 should bring materials as he had paid for them." . , J67 P.686 "I do not know whether structures put up at Gen. Kayumba's farm were paid for..... 1 recall accused 1 being frustrated at pace of work even though accused 2 had been paid." W h a t w e s e e f r o m t h e s e e x t r a c t s i s f a r f r o m b e i n g a c o n f i r m a t i o n t h a t t h e 1s t a p p e l l a n t p a i d t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e s t e e l s t r u c t u r e s . I t s e e m s t o u s , a s w e h a v e g a t h e r e d f r o m t h e t o t a l i t y o f P W 4 's t e s t i m o n y , t h a t h e w a s n o t s u r e i f t h e s t e e l s t r u c t u r e s w h i c h w e r e s u p p l i e d b y t h e 2 nd a p p e l l a n t w e r e p a i d f o r . F u r t h e r t h a t t h e 1st a p p e l l a n t i n c o m p l a i n i n g a b o u t t h e s l o w p a c e o f w o r k s t a t e d t h a t " t h e 2 nd a p p e l l a n t s h o u l d b r i n g m a t e r i a l s a s h e p a i d f o r t h e m " . I n r e - e x a m i n a t i o n , h e s t a t e d t h a t h e d i d n o t k n o w w h a t m o n e y t h e 1s t a p p e l l a n t w a s r e f e r r i n g t o a s b e i n g p a i d . T h i s , i n o u r v i e w , i s n o t t h e s a m e t h i n g a s c o n f i r m i n g t h a t t h e 1s t a p p e l l a n t h a d p a i d t h e 2 n d a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e s t e e l s t r u c t u r e s . P W 4 's t e s t i m o n y a l s o s h o w s t h a t a n u m b e r o f m a t e r i a l s w e r e r e q u i r e d f o r t h e b u i l d i n g o f t h e m i l k i n g p a r l o u r a n d t h a t t h e r e w a s a n e r r a t i c s u p p l y o f s u c h m a t e r i a l s , h e n c e t h e 1 s t a p p e l l a n t 's c o m p l a i n t s . O u r v i e w i s t h a t t h e r e w a s n o t h i n g f a v o u r a b l e t o t h e a p p e l l a n t s i n t h e p o r t i o n o f t e s t i m o n y e x t r a c t e d b y c o u n s e l . ••• J68 P.687 M oreover, PW 4's testim ony w as only but a part of the evidence that the trial court took into account to support its verdict on the charges in counts eight and ten regarding the transactions surrounding the purchase of the steel structures. The evidence as m arshaled by the court encom passed evidence from PW 4, PW 6, PW 10, PW 13 and PW 15. The sequence of events can be traced as far back as M ay 2001 w hen PW 10 w as instructed by the com pany through the 2 nd appellant to issue a bank draft dated 18 th M ay, 2001 to Pick-a- Structure for R 150,000.00 and a deal ticket for a receipt dated 21 st M ay, 2001 for the K w acha equivalent ofR 150,000.00, that is K 66,000,000.00. This ties in w ith the com pany's accounts statem ents, P36 w hich recorded the com pany's transaction w ith Pick-a-Structure to the cost of R 150,000.00 as w ell as indicated various paym ents to PW 4, thereby corroborating his evidence. A s w e see from PW 6's evidence, in Septem ber 2001, steel structures had been brought to the Zam bia A ir force through the 2 nd appellant for the construction of classroom s and a gym . H ow ever to his know ledge a gym w as never constructed. This is the evidence that the pieces of evidence the trial court relied on w hen it found that- ••• J69 "When exhibit P21, P23 and P24 are read together with page 1 of P36 it becomes clear that Base Chemicals made payments to purchase steel structures for A." P. 688 F urther P 64 show ed that the steel structures from P ick-a- S tructure w ere consigned to the A ir force C om m ander. PW 13 and PW 15's evidence w as that the steel structures they saw at L t. C ol K ayum ba's farm w ere sim ilar to those at the 1st appellant's farm and at the A ir F orce academ y in L ivingstone. C ounsel contested the trial court's holding, discarding the appellants' explanation for the transactions relating to the charge for the steel structures for being unreasonable. C ounsel view ed that as a m isdirection. A s w e have already outlined, the defence w as based on the evidence of the appellants them selves, D W I and D W 3, and w as to the effect that the steel structures and building m aterials w ere' paid for by the 1st appellant and L t. G en. K ayum ba. It is abundantly clear from the record that the learned trial m agistrate did carefully exam ine the appellants' defence and found J70 P.689 that the appellant had not offered a reasonable explanation for the transactions. Notably, the 1stappellant's defence was through the production of receipts to support the claim that he bought the steel equipment from the company. A perusal of the record shows that the receipts referred to were issued by him to Handyman's Paradise and Kleenline Chemicals Products Limited and not the company. Since the 2nd appellant's defence in relation to the charges discussed under this ground, was somewhat different from that of the 1st appellant, we will restrict ourselves to the 2nd appellant's version of the defence. This was that in May 2001, Lt. Gen. Kayumba paid for the steel structures through his company Magnvolt and was refunded for the uncollected residue of the structures. Looking at the founding statements which the trial court relied on, we agree with the lower court's finding that the said company was incorporated in August, 2001, after the Pick-a-Structure transaction was done. There was therefore no evidence to support the 2nd appellant's claim. In addition, there was clear evidence, as we have pointed out already, •• •• " >. J7 1 P. 690 th at th e p u rch ase o f th e steel stru ctu res w as d o n e b y th e co m p an y . W e fin d th at th e 2 nd ap p ellan t's ex p lan atio n w as n o t p lau sib le. T h e o n ly reaso n ab le in feren ce to d raw fro m th e to tality o f th e ev id en ce w as th at d raw n b y th e trial co u rt. W e, th erefo re, u p h o ld th e lo w er co u rt's fin d in g th at th e in feren ce d raw n b y th e trial co u rt w as th e o n ly reaso n ab le in feren ce w h ich co u ld b e d raw n fro m th e facts b efo re it. C o n seq u en tly , w e h av e n o reaso n to in terfere w ith th o se fin d in g s in th is resp ect. O n a to tality o f th e ev id en ce, w e fin d th at th e lo w er co u rt w as o n firm g ro u n d s in u p h o ld in g th e trial co u rt's fin d in g th at th e p ro secu tio n d id su ccessfu lly p ro v e its case b ey o n d a reaso n ab le d o u b t, an d u p h o ld in g th e co n v ictio n s o f th e 2 n d ap p ellan t. W e th erefo re u p h o ld th e co n v ictio n an d co n firm th e sen ten ce im p o sed b y th e learn ed trial co u rt. F o r th e av o id an ce o f d o u b t, w e co n firm th e co n v ictio n o f th e 2 n d ap p ellan t o n th e fiv e co u n ts o f co rru p t p ractices w ith a p u b lic o fficer co n trary to th e p ro v isio n s o f th e A n ti-C o rru p tio n C o m m issio n A ct. W e also co n firm th e sen ten ce o f six m o n th s o n J72 P.691 counts four and six; two years on count eight; three years on count ten and one year on counts twelve. All these sentences shall run concurrently from today. G. S. Phiri SUPREME COURT JUDGE D REME COURT JUDGE . Malila, SC r 1