Patrick Chilala Mufwidakule v People (Appeal 86 of 1997) [1988] ZMSC 52 (6 April 1988)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA Appeal No. 86 Of 1987 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Criminal Jurisdiction) } PARTRICK CHILALA MUFWIOAKULE - Appellant and ’■ ’■ ' - THE PEOPLE Respondent CORAM: Ngulube, D. C. J., Gardner, J. S. and Bweupe, AJ. S. i ■ C-.aU ' tu 6th April, 1988 ■ ; . Appellant in person ‘ N. Sivakumaran, Assistant Senior State Advocate, for the respondent Ngulube, D. C. J. delivered the judgment of the court ,J . ' ' . y. : C ■ ... ■1 JUDGMENT > ' ’ <’ : ' . ' ■ : r ir • ' ’ , .f’p s. ca- : * vr . - ' ■ jf'T-'3 ’ : '?- The appellant was convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment with hard labour in the Subordinate court-which sentence ... .-'I i’: ...... v>: ( was substituted with a fine in the High Court on appeal- in respect of two counts of theft by public servant. The’particulars on the first count alleged that on a date unknown but either on 30th or 31st v - 1' . a i I ■ December, 1984 at Kalomp, the appellant as Acting Deputy Treasurer in ■ ' in Be. .,i.< - ar .. : . c,- " . ' ■ ' ■ , the Kalomo District Council stole K580.’l0n, the property of the Counci The particulars on the second count alleged ..that on 30th December, 1984, he stole K466.25,'the property of the Council. At the trial, th learned trial magistrate considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which was to the effect that they had handed over to the appellant certain sums of money and that subsequently the amounts, the subject of the counts, remained unaccounted'for.,; The‘evidence'of PWs and 5 in particular was that they had handed over the grand totals al' by them to the appellant. The appellant's defence was that these witnesses had in fact taken back the money,alleged in the .counts; in particular, PW3 retained some money to enable''him to buy some Chibuku for the Council and that PW5 got some of the money back to purchase 2/....... vehicle . J2 vehicle spares for the Council bus. The two witnesses categorically denied this suggestion made by the appellant. The learned trial magistrati determined that the case had to be resolved on an issue of credibility between the prosecution witnesses and the appellant. The;learned trial magistrate gave detailed reasons why he would disbelieve the appellant and accept the other side's story. In this appeal the appellant has sought to persuade this court to take a different view from that of the court below. It is quite clear to us-and the appellant has conceded-that he in fact has no legal grounds to advance in support of this appeal to enable us to reverse the:nc-- findings which were made on an issue of credibility. He has simply _____ attempted to persuade us to take a different view of the precise matters which he had urged upon the learned trial magistrate and which were______ resolved against him. We must point out that where a case was resolved on an issue of credibility there are set principles which must be demonstrated to this court before we can interfere with .the findings made by the trial court. The appellant in this case has not been able sente*i-ce to show that the learned trial magistrate misdirected himself or was in :-.in uO’/rs on .-r>^eai- tn respect error but simply seeks to persuade us to'his view of the evidence on parc.cvii’5 Cis ttie ■ < . :' record or the supposed deficiency in the evidence. . In truth there are . i no grounds which would lawfully allow this court to Interfere with the. .re*surer Jh • |^;;; »s findings of the learned trial magistrate. This appeal has no chance : ’ et.-iu prooerv-' viv of success and it is accordingly dismissed. cc-:'. ‘ r-:»■ \ ■ ■ __ c-it "■^e:iber, Ci I. Ac rrj al, tn< r„. C osccutioii • • handed -r to tlK- ?■ . I; : ‘.counts, thi M. ■ S. Ngulube - • • ■ -..cc u; .■ DEPUTY CHIEF,JUSTICE ; co la k; ;i, - < de'onca ws; * f ■ ’• •• ■. . . ? ' ■.••• ■ ■ . B. ,T. Gardner ■■■. SUPREME. COURT JUDGE l. B. K. Bweupe ACTING SUPREME COURT JUDGE