Lufundisha v The People (SCZ APPEAL NO. 24 of 1991) [1991] ZMSC 66 (16 April 1991)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA SCZ APPEAL NO. 24 Or 1991 HOLDEN AT KABWE (Criminal Jurisdiction) SAUL LUFUNDISHA Appellant v ' ' ; " ” .. *.'jk THE PEOPLE Respondent * * % 1$ CORAM: SIlungwe C. J., Gardner AJ. S and Chaila J. S. 16 April 1991 Mr. M, K. Mubonda of 0. H. Kemp and Co. for the appellant Mr. E. Sewanyana, State Advocate appeared for the State JUDGMENT Gardner, AJ. S, delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving. The prosecution adduced evidence that the appellant was driving a tractor carrying a disc harrow, during the hours of darkness, without anyHlghts, as a result of which the complainant, who was approaching from behind, did not see the appellant’s vehicle and ran Into it. The learned trial magistrate found that the appellant’s behaviour in driving an unlit vehicle at night amounted to dangerous driving. There was evidence from an Independent witness, PW2 who was approaching in the opposite direction. He gave evidence that as he saw the vehicles In front of him coming towards him he noticed that the appellant’s tractor had no lights, and thereafter he saw the accident occur. * The police officer who was on the scene approximately one hour after the accident confirmed that not only did the tractor have no lights but it had no battery. Against this there was evidence that after the accident (it is not clear how many hours later) the tractor was used with lights to tow the damaged vehicles to a nearby ginnery । rof a cotton producing factory. Mr. Mubonda has argued that the learned trial magistrate was J2 : wrong in accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the tractor had no lights. He pointed out to us that the appellant himself gave evidence that he had in fact had lights on his vehicle. When called upon by this court to give reasons why the independent witness, PW2, should not be believed when he said that there were.no lights on the tractor Mr. Mubonda was unable to draw our attention to any misdirection in the learned trial magistrate's judgment in assessing that evidence. We also have considered all the evidence given by both prosecution witnesses and the defence and we can find no misdirection in the finding of the learned trial magistrate that PW2 as an Independent witness should be believed. The result therefore is that the magistrate was right in accepting the evidence of prose­ cution witnesses that the ^tractor had no lights at the time of the accident, and we find no fault in law with the finding that the appellant's driving of the tractor without lights at night was & dangerous driving. For the reasons we have given this appeal is dismissed. A. M. SILUNGWE CHIEF JUSTICE B. T. GARDNER AG. SUPREME COURT JUDGE M. S. CHA1LA SUPREME COURT JUDGE x- -v ■ Iff ; 4