Manase v People (SCZ Appeal 90 of 1993) [1993] ZMSC 119 (26 August 1993)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA SCZ Appeal Nos. 90*92 of 1993 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Criminal Jurisdiction) ROBINSON HANASE BONANZA FARMS LTD JAHANGIR MOHAMED PATEL VS Appellant THE PEOPLE Respondent CORAMS Sakaia, Chaila and Musunali JJJ. S. For the Appellant, Hr. Patel and Hr. E. Mukuka of Mukuka and Co* Kabwe For the State, Hr. t* Sewanyana, Assistant Senior State Advocate 26th August, 1993. JUDGMENT Chaila, J.5. delivered the judgment of the court. This appeal comes out of the proceedings between Robinson Manase and the People. Hr. Manaso was prosecuted in the Subordinate Court for stock theft. He was acquitted after trial and the Director of Public Prosecutions being dissatisfied with the acquittal filed a notice of appeal against the decision of the lower court. The appeal did not take off in time and proceedings for restitution commenced. The High Court Judge made a ruling that while the appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions was in progress the animals in question were to be kept at a farm called Bonanza farms near Kabwe. The animals were duly kept at that farm. When an order for restitution was made Mr. Manasa requested the police to get the animals from the farm. He got some of the animals and according to the affidavits he did not get the offsprings. He took out proceedings for contempt against the police, as well as against the appellant, the Manager of Bonanza farms. After the proceedings the learned High Court Judge found that the appellant was guilty of contempt /2,,.and sent and tent him to prison. His Advocate applied to the Supreme Court to have the order set aside and the order was granted but the lower court disagreed with the ruling of the Supreme Court. The appellant being dissatisfied with the ruling of the High Court appealed to the Supreme Court. The State has not supported the finding of guilt in respect of the contempt. We agree with the steps taken by Hr. Sewanyana. The facts did show that the appellant* when the offence involving Hr. Hanase was ccwmitted and when Mr. Hanase was being tried in the Subordinate Court Mr. Patel was not even in the country. He was not a party to the arrangements made by the police and the court. The evidence shows that he did not do anything that could amount to disrespect of any court order. In any event the record shows that the Director of Public Prosecutions did file an appeal and the appeal is still pending. Since the appeal is still pending, there could not be any contempt committed. We agree with Hr. Mukuka’a argument that there was no contempt committed. The order made by the High Court Judge is set aside. The appeal is allowed, we quash the order for contempt. E. L. Sakala SUPREME COURT JUDGE M. S. Choi la SUPREME COURT JUDGE C. M. Musumall SUPREME COURT JUDGE