People v Constance Nalishebo Muleabai (SL/FC/02/25) [2025] ZMSUB 3 (29 September 2025)

• p • or e St ate • • l SS G , uyunda and Miss . L . A. Ham e emba of C r or c c sed Pe r so ! r . W. K. Cheelo of Messers Leoard ea ar e r s an d r . B Ch· ala of Messe rs Boniface Chi ala ega rac 1. • o ers C OCEDURE CQD,E CHAPT. ER 88 V CHAMPAKO KOMBWE JQ,SE H (20101 ) Z 207 ( 0 ' ' R p - TO 207 O· HE C s 0 z co E ( co 0 _C C ' C 7 ' • 1 1 The accus d stands c har e d wi h wo coun s of corrupt ra tices with pr ' vate body , con ar y to Secti n 20( 1) , as read with Section 41(a) , o f t he Anti-Corruption Act o 3 of 2012 . 1. The court i s c a lled up on to de t ermi ne wh e ther the evidence adduced by the pro s ecuti on is suf f icie nt t o r equire p tting the a c c used on her def e nce o r not . At the ' no cas . t o a ' s t age, t he applicab le test i s that there is a ca se to answer if t h e pro s ecuti on evidence is such that a reasonab le ribuna mi g h t convict upo n it if no exp l a na tion was of f e r e d by he d efence . 1 4 e court mu s t assess whether the prose cution has prese ed s u f f · cie nt e v idence which, if accepted as cr e dib e , wo warrant a convict i on . As stated in Archbold (43rd e~ o , ) , a submission 0£ 'no case to an.swer' shou1d be _ o wh en there is no evidence upon which, i£ the, evi ~ .... -...... re accepted, a reasonable jury, properly dire , co v i ct'' T • s aut ority ·EOPL supported • e lS (1 - 67) z, 9 _ - here the Co r by ase a e s a t e e I l. S no ,case to answer where '(a) an essential ingredient of the offence is no ro _ (b) where the evidence adduced has be n iscredi e s a result of c oss examination (c) whee t e ev'd ce a duced · un 1 c n convic · so m • e on ' II n e • F t e o i es that · If at the clo to the a ear er ·on ccused efe · - nee ... II e of evi ence in su port of the charge , cou · t th t a case is made out against the to make a to require him ·U!T£CIE_~TLY i 1 7 · · _· ·to · gman Dictio,nary of Contemporary Eng i .sh ( . e ag 1058, defines the term ' sufficiently" as · I 'enough; as m ch as i .s needed for th .e purpose . 11 · n erpreting th e me aning of ''s ufficient ly /1 as employe t e cour 207 above , guidance was provide d by Sec . ·_o · n · (.2010) ZR 25, w ere . · OP E V. CHAMPAKO KOMBWE JOSEPH e d as fol ·. ows : • The Court 's understanding of the words 's uff · cien ly o im to make a defence'' in sect ion 206 of the Pe a require Code is that at the stage of the close of prosecut · on as proved its case beyond reaso able do b t e case fo r te eit er is it supposed to determine the issue of the witnesses . These are mat er.s reliability of de ... ermi ed by the Court in its composite role bo . as a of fact and of law , after a careful evaluat · on of the e i e ce at t e conclusion of the trial · e - , e to be The Cour ' s obligation to stop a case is a. which is concerned primarily with necessary minimum evidence to es ablish the fac so has not been called those cases ob iga -io e w · ere the c i e It is not the Court ' s . -ask -o - ,eigh the evi who is telling the t uth , and o stop he case h Cou t thinks hat he wi ness is lying ence, to merely be se 4. A • ngr '.) ov cas • • pr1ma n di on (und 1· 0 he • , m ) does nee cha n h faci cas no me n proving e • h n ge I the e if here • 1. S ' • • e • .1 In e l • was ro i g In crimina l c ases , the rule is th a t the lega l b rd e of charge , of co seque ntl y th e guilt of the accused l ies from beg i n i e . d o ·: h e prosecution . element o ff e nce e · er y the 2 T es a n dard of proof must be beyond all r e a s onab l e o t A s ubmiss i on of no case to answer ma y p roper l e a (a ) ele e oft e a ll eged offence; and t e re h as been no evidenc e to e r o e ) { d' scredi t ed that no reasonable tr i bunal cou , evide n ce adduced by the p rosecutio e as ee o • sa e C i t T e sup o a s e a ccu sed bears o f a y defe ce the burden o f after he as b e e add ci g e OU I • · e ce se a • efore roe i g, I wis o ex ess my appreciation t bo h the tate and the Defenc ·or heir respective submissions I have carefully considered he arguments advanced by eac arty, and they have been instrumental in guiding this r ling. In arri ing at this decision , I have reflected upon three f ·- damental questions that lie at the heart of the 'no case to as er' inquiry : • • l hether the pro secution has adduce d sufficient evide ce w ic ' , if accepted, would establish a prima ·· acie case against the accused person; Whether the evidence presented is manifes tly cred'b e and reliable to the extent that a reaso able · rib a , properly directed , could convict on it i , t e a s e ce o a defence , and 0 I l l ether the prosecution has successfully laid o e essential elements of the of fe ce as cha ged, e eb satisfying the statutory requireme s necessary o sustain t e charge 2.2 T ese questions form the basis of the ju icial assessmen a is stage , and my ruling is p e icate - upo a ho o evaluation oft e evidence in ligh of hese cos· ea io s on ho uh o V he C s 1· y h s x m n ' n s ' man'fes ly e , l1abJ , and suf f · ci n s lish a ima f c · e ca s ., a·nst the accuse The prosecutio I has ischarge , 1 S ur en t this s g by he ev'dence a duced 2 4 ccordingl , I find that here is a case to answer The accused is the ref ore called upon to enter her defence I l accordance with the provisions of the law. The proceed· gs shall o advance to the defence stage , where the accused ·11 have the opportunity to respond to the allegatio s a d present her case . 2 5 · HE CRIMI AL PRQ,CEDURE CO OF , At the close of the evidence i C suppor pro ides t a t : of the charge , it appears to the court that a case is ade out against the accused person sufficiently to re o make a defence , the court s hall again e xplain t e s bs a ce of the charge to the accu s ed and shall inform him ta he as t e right to give evidence on hi s own behalf ad ta , ' f e e will be liable to cross examination, or to ma e does so, a statement not on oath wet er he has any witnesses to examine or othe evide ce o adduce in his defence , and the court shall the _ e accused and his witnesses and other evidence, if a y the dock, and sha 1 as from ·re ea i · 2 6 ( ) 0 IAL CR - S CO CODE 2 02 S. ( 0 . 10 OF 2 · t end rovi des, where an accused person fou n d with a case to ans ver i to lead e v i den ce in t h e accused person ' s defence , the acc us ed le gal representa tives t h at accused pers on or s h a l l within f ou r t een da y s from th e date o f the accused p erson being found wi t h a case to ans wer , by way o f disc l os ure file a document t ha t t h e accu se d person i n t en ds to re l y on . (2) an ac c used pers on s h al l within t wo days o f (a) fil ing the doc ument referred to in subrul e di sclosure , s erve t he document on t h e prosec ut i on , ad (1) by way of (b) service o f th e document on t h e pro s ecut i on i wi h paragraph (a), file an affidavi t of servi c e accord a c e 2 7 Ha vi g carefully considered the tota lity of the e 1 e ce • addu ced by t he p r osecution ; I am sa ti s fied t a t a pr i a • ace cas e h as been es t ab li shed aga i nst t e accused erso Accordingl y , I f i nd tha t the accused h as a case o as e respect of Coun t One and Count Two , both re l a ti · g o of f ences of Corrup t Pra c t ic e s wit h a Private Bod, co a to Section 20(1) , as read together i t h Sectio 1 ( a ) , • e e An i-Co r ruption Act No 3 of 2012 2 8 I light of t is f i ndin , th e a cc used s hall be i r r'g ts A date shall b e se for he pre - e ence e · • I du i g w ich th cou of he def nee oceedi • gs •