Mulila v The People (SCZ Appeal No. 13 of 1990) [1991] ZMSC 62 (19 February 1991)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA SCZ Appeal No. 13 of 1990 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA SHADRECK MULILA Appellant vs THE PEOPLE Respondent CORAM: Gardner, A. J. S., Sakala and Chaila JJ. S. Mr. G. S. Phiri, Director of Public Prosecutions, for the People" Appellant, in person. ’ ' .a’ 19th'Februa^ ft JUD G M E N T A Chaila J. S. delivered the judgment of the court Th e a p p 11 cant was c h a rgbd; w i th s i x co unt s, ‘of”theft by p ub 1 i c ' - ■ servant and four counts of fraudulent false: accounting. He was ; • convicted in respect, of all six counts and he was’-sentenced to.-six' , . . - 'r.-. ? months imprisonment with hard; labour: on two;counts,; eighteen months' imprisonment with hard labour on one count and three months imprison ment with hard labour on the other counts. He later .appealed to the High Court against both convictiqnsxand. sentences, particularly •. eighteen months imprisonment with hard-labour. The High-Court - dismissed the appeals against convictions and also against sentences except the eighteen months imprisonment with hard-labour. The High Court reduced the eighteen months imprisonment with hard labour to twelve months imprisonment with:hard labour. He now applles to this.court for leave to appeal, presumably against the convictions, since he has already served the sentence. .. He advanced in his application various grounds. , ile advanced at first nine grounds of appeal and then he' added another eight' grounds of ' appeal. He advanced a total of seventeen grounds of appeal. The main complaint in all these seventeen grounds 4s that he'was implicated in having stolen the money K2,120:4.0 apd he wondered"hp'^^ arrived at that figure. He has advance his argument by attacking the evidence of various witnesses produced by the prosecution. He has ■ /2..;;; bi tteply ■.; bitterly complained about PW1 who mentioned the total sum of K2,120.40 and he has argued that that witness was not sure of what he was talking about. The appellant wondered how the witness came to that figure. The evidence showed that the applicant was a Party accountant in Samfya. The evidence showed that he received various sums of money from his subordinate staff. It must be observed that he has not denied? having received the money from his subordinates but-his main complaint is that he was not sure of how the prosecution arrived at that figure on various counts. In his defence he advanced the-reason that the money was stolen because4ie had put the money .in a place which was not safe and that when he came back from Samfya, he found the money missing. The learned trial magistrate did not believe his story since the prosecution adduced evidence that he had been provided with a cash box' which the applicant did not use. So the learned trial magistrate, after dismissinghis defence convicted him. We have considered the 'applicant’sgrounds and his arguments. We have considered his main argument that;the prosecution did not show \ ' ■ sr sufficient evidence on how they arrived at the figure of K2,120.40. PW1 gave detailed evidence of the books and receipts which showed that the appellant had received the total of K2,120.40.for which he failed to account. Jn his cross-examination ofPW1,the.appellant did not seriously challenge the total referred to.. In any everit the real defence of the appellant was that the money, whatever the amount, was stolen from the place where he kept' it. The magistrate did not believe this excuse and, in comingto this.decision,he did not . misdirect himself in any way. We have concluded that there are no good grounds for us to interfere with the learned trial magistrate^ finding. We find that there is no merit in his complaint about'the way the prosecution calculated the figures. We find there is no ' merit in his proposed appeal and the application to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused ■ - ■ ■ ■ ' B. T. Gardner SUPREME'COURT JUDGE . ns fl M. S. Chai la SUPREME 'COURT- JUDGE-