R v Chingolo (Criminal Appeal Cause No. 14 of 2024) [2025] MWHCCrim 2 (19 December 2025)

. REPUBLIC OF MALA WI . IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALA WI . . .· . , • CRIMINAL DIVISION Zoinba Registry Criminal Appeal Cause No. 14 of 2024 [Being Criminal Case -No. 353 of 2024 Before the Senior Resident lVlagistrate's Court Sitting at Zomba I ' BETWEEN ~· ~ • THE REPUBLIC ..... ;:~ ............. . ~: ...... ........................ .......... APPELLANT . . GODFREY CHINGO°LO .... ..... .... .. ..... .. o• • • • • • f • • ~- ••• ~- . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESPONDENT • . AND CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE D. H. SANKHULANI B. Matunibi, Public Prosecutor, for the Appellant . . :- ~ ' . .. . . . .. H. Ching'anda, Principal Legal ~ id Advocate, for the Respondent ' . . r ) A. Kazambwe, Court Clerk L. Ivlbog4; CouJi Reporter • . ' . ,. ; · .. JUDGMENT ON APPEAL • ~ Sankhulani J Introduction 4 . \ • ,. .. ·-, This Judgment follows hearir1g that was held on the Appellant's appeal against acquittal of the Respondent., • • a Background The Respondent stood ·indicted before the Senior Resident Magistrate's Court sitting at Zomba ('the ·court below' ) on five (5) count; . Details of the offences in those counts shall be p,9vided later in this Judgment. , . At plea stage, the Respondent pfeaded not guilty to all the counts. Accordingly, the Prosecution, on behalf ·of the A,ppellant, paraded one (1) witness, the investigator, at the close of whose testimony it (the Prosec~tion) closed its case . • . By its ruling on case t9 ans~ef, • dated 19th August, 2024; ('the Ruling'), the court below acquitted the Re~pondeI].t on all the c~unts: ·,. \ ~ ~ Being dissatisfied with;the Respondont's acqulttaf, the Appellant appealed to this Court against the ruling_ aforesaid. In addition· to the petition of appeal, containing the grounds of appeal, the Appellant filed written arguments and submissions in support of the appeal. 1 he R<:5spondent filed written arguments and submissions in opposition to the appeal. Wqi.le bn tbis, we would like to register our deep indebtedness to Counsel for b()th sides hereto for the insightful representations made to us. May it be poted, ·in ·this regard, that we shall bear in mind the parties' arguments and submissions, in this Judgll}.enf Where ~hecessary, we shall make specific reference to them. . .. . ·• .,, The appeal was heard irf the presence of both sides-.hereto. After hearing the appeal herein, we adjourned this matter for judgm~nt. H~nce this Judgment. ' • ·0- . . ., . . .. ,. . •> . .. ., . .. . .. Grounds Of Appeal The grounds of tlie app~al herein are as follows: . . (1) The lower court t:rred tn· law when it failed to .find a case to answer in light .. - of the applicable l~w arid. the avai-lable_.evidence; . -~ .. • . .. (2) The lowei;, court _.erred in law when 'it failed to differentiate between an admission of a c~arge/offence and a confession of facts ; • ,. • . , -t (3)The lower court prred in.law when it failed to apply the proper weight to a confessioll'as pa~_of,the.e'\ilidenc~; . '• ' ( 4) The lower court erred ·in law when it held that, in law~ the medicines had to be proved to be medi~ines or allied substances before the Respondent could be convicted on ~'1 chaJ;ge of selling mecMcjpes or allied su~stances without .. authority; • .. . • . (5) The lower court erred in lq;,v when it failed to take judicial notice of the fact . that HIV/AIDS has n6 cure; and . ., . ·' - .. . . I (6) The lower court_ erred ..in law when it held that; -in law, · the Prosecution needed to -prove 'that the medicines or~llied stib'stances presented in court did not cure HIV/ Aids .before the Respondent could be convicted on a charge of obtainipg by f~lse·preten~es. • • • In order to properly gui?e oµrselvet_fl-Pd, also, for ease~·of. following by the parties hereto, we shall deal with th~se ground~ o~ appeal separately, when it comes to our determination. Special mention sliould be made, here, ·that, in our opinion, Ground (I) of the appeal ·hereirl:is somehow an overarchfog ground~. By this, we mean that some of the grounds of the appeal are, by us, deemed subsumed under Ground ( 1) thereof. Consequently; as w~ deal with Ground (l)· .of tke appeal, we shall, at appropriate stage$, also: ·deal with any ·oth~i purported ground of appeal that we deem subsumed under Grmi_.rid (1). • , _ . • • t ' .. ,. ., . •. • ¥ Reliefs Sought .. , By the present appeal, :the Appel'l.ant seeks ·several declaratj.ons on the position of the law directly _arisin~· from _!he .grounds. of appeal herein. We do not find it necessary to mention tliose ~eclarations at tHis stage:, Apart from the declarations, the Appellant also seek~ an order. reve~sing the acquittal and, in its place, entering a finding that the Respondent has a case to ansv1er. Furth.er, to that, the Appellant seeks an order that tri<tl of the Respondent m:µst proc_eed in the subordinate court but before a different presiding officer. • ' •• ., l ' • The Applicable Law On Appeals Before The High Court'In' Criminal Matters . ... .. .,. ' .... , . . Any person aggrieveq 1 by any. final judgm~_nt or orde,r or sentence of any subordinate court may ·1:1ppeal to the High Court (Sectio~ 3 46(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code~ Such ··an appeal may be upon a matter of fact as well as a matter of law .,4'. Secti.on 346(2) of the Criminal·Procedure and Evidence Code). However, when· the agg;i.eved is the Director ·of Pµ"blic Prosecutions ('the DPP'), then he or she riaay :appeal to the High C~urt against any final judgment or order, including a find~pg of acquittal of any subordinate, only if_he or she is so aggrieved on a matter:·of law ~(Section 346(4) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code). Thus~. by. law, the DPP is not allowed to appeal against a final judgment or order of a subordi.r'lqte court on a matter of fact. . ... .•. In terms of numb~r of presidi_ng judges,. an appeal from a subordinate court is heard by a single judge of the? High_ Col!rt, except where the Cbief Justice directs that an appeal be heard by two or mar~ judges '.(Section ·-347(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code). . ' . \ I it. #' . . . \-I . . When the High ~ourt••is coµsidering ~n appeal .from the sub6rdinate court, it proceeds by way of rehearing (see Mulewa v~. Rep [1997] 2 MLR 60). By this is meant that the Hrgh Court considers the evidence that was in ',:he court below, the findings of fact and th~ .law applied to the fa~ts antl dete_r:rriines whether or not the court below directed itself to the relevant facts anp the applicable law in aniving at the verdict it came up ~with· (see Mulewa vs. Rep, supra). However, an appellate court is to be slow to reject' findings of a trial court b~~ause of .the trial court's advantage of seeing anq hearing witne~s, unless there .. is insuffici'ent evidence to . . ,. . .. . , ; . . • . . . support those findings ·pr there ·is cogent e~iddnc~ to the contrary which has been misinterpreted or,.overlooked.'(Chakufwa Thom Chihana vs. Republic, MSCA Criminal Appeal No. 09,, of 1992)., . . . ' •, . : . - . . The Material Evidence Proffered Before The Court Below , . . . At this juncture, we sh!ill outline the material evidence as was proffered before the court below. We ~ill d6.·so becartse, although.the prese]].t appeal is on points of law only, but the pronouncements tu{nl,l1g on the law complained of herein arose from an assessment of the eyidence .by ·the court beJow. Hen~e the present need to re- . produce the evide.nce that was proffered before the court below. •• . As it has already beeQ.· mentioned, et:here was only one witness who had been paraded by the Pr~sectµion. Since the acquittal -~omplaineq of herein was made at case-to-answer st~ge, i~· obviously means that no defence wltne~s Uf19 been paraded yet. . ~ . .• . • . - .. , , ' ' /' ., • ' . . . . . . . . In examination-in'-chief, PWl , the Prosecution's sole witness, stated that he was Number B2246 Detective $ubt. Inspector~Kanyamula Mic"k:son, stationed at the National Police Headquarters. He knew • Godfrey Chingolo ('the Respondent') following his in;estigation of the present c_a~e. On 23 rd May, 2024, he joined a team from the Pharmacy and Medicines Regl\_latory Authority, following an outcry from the general public that some .pe~ple were-selling ·a drug called Gammora, claiming it was a cure for HIY AIDS. Investigations led to .the Re,spondent who, it was established, was s~dying at,Chhncellor Co1leg~ (officially-called University of Malawi). He went to Chansellor College aud inet, the Respondent. He introduced himself as a pQFce officer from National P.olice Headguarters. He told the Respondent that he was there ih respect of the drug called Garnmora that the Respondent had bee:q: de~ling in through social · medi4. He infom1ed the Respondent that he had th~ right to remain silent. The Re·spondent chose to state everything. That was ~t Chance\lor College, before his· arrest. The Respondent stated that he was in· the b~iness of selling GammoTa, an HIV drug. The Respondent deni~d th~• the drug cures HIV AID/5. The Respondent stated that he did not have penpissiqn to~h~ndle medical -tirugs. The Responde?t further stated that at time he did not 'have the- drug a~ his fiouse. The Respond,ent stated that he has no knowledg~ of medicine: The R~spondent. stated that a consignment of the . . .. • " ' •. • • . ·" C .. :I .. • • I I , .. . ' .. • (1 . Jo . . ··• .. . drug from Mzuzu whi:ch was at. Speed Courier (Zomba) was in his name. The Respondent ment)oned _the name -of th~ send~r Qf the consigmuent, who is at large. Speed Courier is an institution through which ·people send and receive parcels. The Respondent and l)im went to Speed Courier (Zomba). There, the Respondent was given a parcel, after itjtroducing himse1{ as Godfrey- Cllingol9. 1nside the parcel, there was Gammora df4g. He• topk the Respondent to Zomba Police Station. There, ' ' he informed the Res_pbndeht t~at he had . the right to remain_ silent and be represented. The Respondent _elected to proceed with the recording of the caution statement. PW 1 tendei,ed a Notice of Seizui:e of tµe drugs, marked as Exhibit P 1. He then tendered· sixty· tablet·s of Gammora :drug, marked as Exhibit P 2. He then tendered a Cash o_n Delivery Receipt bearing the name of t~e Respondent, marked as Exhibit P 3. He then' tend~rep the Respondent' s phone_ that was•confiscated from him, marked as &hi bit . P 4. He then tend~red a screensh~t from a WhatsApp group comprising 717 memb~rs headed Gammora -HIV Cure, 'marked as Exhibit P 5(a). He then tendered another • screenshqt of a . WhatsApp ~oriversation, marked as Exhibit P 5(b). He then tendered a further screensl:tot of a W·hatsApp conversation, marked as Exhibit P 5(c). He then tendered ~nother screenshot• 9f a WhatsApp conversation, marked as Exhibit P 5(d). He then tendered the Respondent's Caution Statement, marked as Rxhibit P 6. He then telil.dered the Respondent's Evidence of Arrest, marked a~ Exhi"bit ~ 7: And, finally, he tendered the Police Report that he . had prepared after the i~vesti•gations, rriarke~ _as Exhibit P 8 .. , ~ • • - , • • • ~ lo ~ . Under cross-exa~inatiop., PW_I stated that th~. conver~ations he'had tendered did not show who had created the WhatsApp group. •There is no-·copy showing who had created the g.roup~·. If orie tapi 'lnformation'_ ta}? pertaining to a WhatsApp group, it shows who created the group. But it, qmnqt shaw the phone number of the group's creator. If the io.formatl'~n had been brought be:fqre the court, it would have shown the creator. Two··indiViduals can have similar names, .and '£an have national identities showing the ·~same name. When registering siln cards, we use national Identities. Airtel ?r Tl';!M agents capture details of the person r~gistering a sim card. Mobile operators do have such··details. The Pro'secution had tlie capability to get such details. -. It was pos.sible to get details of the tiational identity of the Respondent. Airtel det&ils of the person who hid registered the sirri card in issue had not been brought ~efor~ the. court. If such details were available, then they would have been· com_Qared to the· Respon_dent's details: ~very pnone has got its own identification code called ··International M~bile Equipme~t Identity (IMEi), ' . .. ~ ~ ~ ' # • • • '\' .f ' . . .. ·-g, . . • ' • • , I ~ ~ t ' ' . 4 At , . . • and mobile phone operators µo have that information. If sucl\ details were brought before the court, .they would h~ve shown if the.phone numbe~ on the WhatsApp group in issue he~ein w:as in tli.y R~spo.pdent' s phone·. He (PW 1) is not a medical expert. He did not have:-'informaJion about woot cures wliaf. illness. He did not have information on what ctires HIV AipS and ~hat does .not. He is not a pharmacist. He did not have technic{al knowhow on HIV AIDS. There is no evidence that HIV AIDS cannot be cured:. He did n~t kno;, the drug (Gammor.a) medit ally. The drug had not been proved by any· p4,arm,,acist. The :drug· had not been proved to be Gammora or not. He di'd not know the sender of the messages. He did not know ... anyone who had com·e to, ~he court saying they had sought drugs from the Respondent. He .. had eJ1rlier stated.,that the -ResP,ondent had signed the caution statement and the evi.den~e of arrest, • admitting the offence. }n the Caution Statement, the Respondent had not stated that he·had signed on the J>hotocopies of the WhatsApp screen{hots. For the ResponQent . to sell the .. drug, he needed a licence or authority. Th~re was ·no document te.ndered to, show that the Respondent did not have the licence or a\lth~rity to sell the drug. He had not shown evidence of the outcry of people b¢ing s_old fake drugs. The Respon<ient had admitted to the charges that he had read to him. The _charge.s that ' the Respon<ient had admitted to were not the ones befofe the court. He (PW 1) was not aware of any amendments to the charge sheet. OJ} the Notice of seizure, he had ~~ated that 80 tablets were obtained from the Respondent, of wfiich tablets 20 w~re taken for analysis at a laboratory. The results Qf the allalysis as to whether the seized -drug was Gammora or not were not yet in. !fe' cQuld not answe1 t_hat the substance WqS not Gammora. He had not founc;l the ·RespoIJ.d~~t sell1ng ·drugs. He had found drugs under his possession. The Drugtat Speed Courier were under th~ R~spondent's authority, hence possession. He had searched. at the :Respondent's house for medicine, and found none. He (PW 1) ··had struggled and failed to find the WhatsApp conversation he had re~rred to in the phone. Tope phone .hc1,d been seized from the Respondent during his; arrest. The Respondent had ·no phone.., from the time of seizure. From the convrrsatiop, .. there is no -~roof ~hat the Resp~mdent wanted to receive money through aeceit There was no sign 'that the Respondent had obtained money from anyone. From .. the. WhatsA.pp conversation, there is :proof that the . l Respondent was misleading someone tliat he 'Yas selling drugs. . . . . . " . . . ., ' • ' ,. • , ' • • . . . ~ ' ~ • • • .. In re-examination,, pw· I stated that he· had told the Respondent before obtaining the Caution Statement-.'why . he interviewed him. After he (PW 1) had read the . . .. . •· - • t • • a charges to the Respondent, the Respo~dent ;e_sponded in th¼- Caution Statement. He had seen the conversation whereby the. RespQndent was addre;sing members of a WhatsApp group, informing th@tn that. the drug was a cure .for HIV AIDS. The Respondent told ~im that he was· selling Gammor~. The . Respundent had told him that he was the one who had created the WhatsApp group~ The !lespondent told him that he did ~ot ha_ve Gaminora at his 'house--but m Mzuzu. -The Respondent further stated that they · had to check with Speed Courier ·(Zomba), upon doing which they found :Gammora. The Respondertt had admitted to the charge of dealing in medicine without licence or advertising or misleading people. The Respondent stated that he had been: deal.irig, in the' Gammora business since 2023, and that he had been receiving money.., Accordip.g to -investigations, the .. phone number advertising Gamn;10ra o..n WhatsApp was that of the Respondent. The Respondent had told him that the phone :11umber was his. • ". . . . ,. ,. . . . . ,, . . . . . This marks the end of our outline of the material evidence as was proffered before the court below. • .., : " ·~ • ,. This Court's Determination ' Ground (1) - Th.~ Low~r Court Erred in 'tttw When ft Failed to Find a Case to Answer in Light of the Applica'ble Law and t~e Available Evidence ~ . ~ . -:, . On this ground of app_~al, th~ 4 ppellant esse~t,ally_ argues that the court below should have found the Respondent with a case to answer -:on"all the counts. The Respondent argues otherwise,: . . . " • . ~ ., . As we stated earlier on, the present ~round of appeal is _som~how an overarching ground, meaning that some_-of th€ grounds are deemed, by us, subsumed under the present ground. So, as "i't has al~eady been mentiqned, a's w~ deal with the present ground of appeal, we· shal( at appr opriate stages, also deal with any other purported ground of appeal which ..;e deem suqsumed under the present ground. t. • . oJ We start with restating the applicable law at case---to-answer stage. The net effect of Section 254 sub-sectio~s (l) and ('2) of the Crimin.al Pr.ocedure and Evidence Code as read together, \1/hiQh rei~te to criminal tria1s-before· the magistrate courts, is to require the court, at the closure of the prosecution' s case, to make a .. , ' ,._ .... . . ... ~ ~ • • • • r .. . . . - . determination as to wh·~ther ~r riot a case has been made o·ut against the accused. That determination is what is comni.onl)' refer:red to as a determination on a case to answer. Where the coµ~ is- of the opinion that rio case is made out against the accused sufficiently to requjre hilJl to make a ~efence, it de_livers a judgment in the manner provided for in Sec~ions 139 and 140_ of the. Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code·· acquitting the accused (Section 254 (1) of. the Criminal Procedure and Evidehce Cod;). Where, on the other hand, the court is of the opinion that the a,ccusecl has got a case to ~ns:Ver, it. ca.,ls upon }.1im to enter upon . his defence. The purpose for: a determination on -a case to answer has been said to be to help determine, ~t an early stage, whether t9~ continu'e with the case or not (see R vs. Wilson' [201.2] MWHC 79): A finding o·f no case to "answer will be made where there has· been no evide-'1,ce to prove the essei:itial elements of the alleged offence or if the evidence adduced by the pr~_se~ution bas been. so discredited as a result of cross-examination fJ'r is so manifestly unreliable that that rio tribunal could safely convict on it (see Namonde vs. Republic 16(2) ML~ 657). At the stage of determining whether o~· not the"ticcused has a ease to answer_, the standard of proof required to establish a -case which the accused must be ·called upon to answer is prima facie proo{, and,.,not ·PfO(?f beyond reasonable d~ubt sufficient to warrant a conviction (see DPP V:S, Chi_mphonda & . Allotber 7 ML~ 94). ·For prima facie proof to be said to have been established; the £vidence need not be such as would cause a reasonable tribunal to convict; it is sufficient ,if it is merely such as could achieve such a result (s€e Gwazantini.. vs. Republic [2004] MLR 75). . . . . 0 ,. . r .. ~ O I : , ~ - . . Coming to the present ~atter; as is always the case witn any other criminal matter, the burden of proof w~s cin the Prosecution ·to prove the Respondent's guilt (see Section 187(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code). However, since the acquittal complain~d of herein was made at case-to-answer stage, it means, applying the abqv.e legal principles, 'that the ProsecutiQn' s eyidence had, at that stage, only to qe such: as 'coulcl, and not ,,.tJ:lat• which \v'. Ould, cmis~ a reasonable tribunal to convict the R--espondent. In other words, the Prosecution's evidence had, facie proof of the essential~elements of the at that stage, to simply. ·establish prima offences herein. So, in the s~cce"ed1ng_paragraphs, we shall det"ermine whether the Prosecution's evidence outlined a,1'ove established prim'a facie proof of the essential elements of t}Je offenc~s herein. We shall consid~r the different offences separately. . - - . ~ . ~ , , • 0, .. • ' . . • .. I ' . . We start with the offence iri ·the First Coun.t, which is selling medicines or allied substances with misleac'.ting information, contrary to Section 106 of the Pharmacy and Medicines Reg~latory _. Author1ty Act 2019 ('th~ 1st Offence'). The particulars of the offenc;e, as p.er the charge sheet, read a~ follows: , . .. "Between the months of. January a;d May in the year 2024~ at Zq"~ba in the Republic of Malawi, Godfrey Chingolo s;kl . a medicine or allied substance c~lled Gomorah in a manner that is fal§e, misleading or deceptive ill respect of its character, constitution, value, potency, quality:, composition, nforit or safety and particularly its claim ·that the said .. medicine or allied subst~nce cures HIV/AIDS." ... ... . . ' ,. .. ... •. . 1) The question that, then, arises is: what are Jh~ elements of the 1st Offence? Our starting point shail be the rel~vant ,provision itself. Section 106 of the Pharmacy and Medicines ij.egulat~ry Authori~ Act 2019 reads a~ follows: "(1) A person shall not' label, package, alter exI'i-ry d~te, process, sell or advertise any medicine or alliea substance in a manner thit is fal~e, misleading or deceptive in respect of its character, constitutio~, value, po~ency, quality, composition, merit or safety or in contravention of any pnNision "Qf this Act. • ·' (2) A person who contfaveries subsection (1) commits ari · offence _and is liable, upon conviction, to a fine of ~10,000,090 and t~ imprisonment for ten years." ~ .. , From subsection _(l) of;the·provision just reprodl.).ced above; i! is clear, and we so find, that the 1st Offen.ce has got three main elements. The first element of the offence is that there must have been a claim to be selling .medicine or allied substance, as defined iD.rto Secti'on 2 o~.the Pharmacy and M~dicines Regulatory Authority Act 2019. The ·second elernep-t of the offence .i's that there must have been an actual sale, in legal sen~, of the claimed.medicine or allied substance. The third and last eleµient bf the offence is that the sale must · have been made with misleading infoPmation~ ·That is all in terms of the actustreus 9f tJ:le 1st Offence. In terms of the mens rea:· of the 1st Offence', there: must have been an intention to mislead or deceive. . .. . : . . " . , . ,~ - .. .. . . ~ , Having determined the eiements of the I st Offence, which offence the Respondent was charged with and" acquitt~d of, }Ve· now must determine whether or not the elements were met by_ the P~osecution's evidence. By merely looking at the particulars of all the five: offenc·es of which the Respondent had been charged with and eventually asquitte_d of; ,it ·is cle"ar to us th.at t]j.e Pt'osecution's- case turned on the alleged claim. made by, the F.espondent, in the c.ot1rse of his alleged sale of Gammora, to the effect:Jhat -Gc,immora cures HIV infe~tion. ln ·view of this, and for . . . . .:•· ,._ .,. ... . . .. • • . . . . . . reasons that shall becoiue obvio~s, w~ will start with th·e thi;d element of the 1st Offence, as above isolated. The third eleme~r of the 1st Qffe~ce, as above isolated, is that the sale must h,ave been made with misleading information. In this vein, going by the particula~s of the 1 ~ Offence reproduced above, the gist of the Prosecution's case was . that tl;i~ selling of Garrimora b~ the Respon1ent was done . with misleading information, to the extent that the information claimed that Gammora cures HIV. The ~6urt below, in a_cquitting the Respondent, held that no expert witness had testified that HIV has got nQ cure. In other words, the court below held that there w.as no ev~ence proffered before it pro'.ving that HIV has got no cure. The position of the Appellan( is that there is, pr~sentiy, ~o cure for HIV. Accordingly, in- the pi:esent appeal, tlie Appellant ~rgues that the court below should have taken judicial ,notice of the fact that there is, p~esently, no cure for HIV. Therefore, the app~lla~t submits, the court below erred when it failed to take judicial notice of the fact that there is, presently; no cure for HIV. Of course, this is also what the fifth gr~mnd of the. appeal herein is' all about. ,On his part, the Respondent argues that the -c0urt below needed evidence froµi an expert in the medical field to attest o~ whether; on the present body of medical knowledge, HIV has no cure. . - . . ' . • • • • • • - • • I ,. ~- ,. •• • . . On our part, we .agree "with the Respondent ·on the pqsition he has taken on the issue at hand, for reasons w; win now fur:qish. We must begin by stating that we did embark upon a sea~ih for re}evant sta~to,y provisions and case authorities on the issue at hand. With;respect to statutory pro:visions, we examined the HIV and AIDS (Preventipn an4 Management) Act 2017. That Act', as w~ found it, is not helpful respecti~g the ::iss~e ~t hand, as. it is comple!ely silent on the same. Regarding case authoritf es, we were not successful on the domesti'c front. On the continental stage, of t~e authoritie's that we ~ound, th~· most recent one that we found is the 2019 decisipn of tlie Ugandan High Court in die case of Komuhangi Silvia vs. Uganda [2019] UGHC 39. In that case, t'he court stated that there was no cure for HIV. However; we'.found that statement not to be helpful, for two reasons. Firstly, as we have already said, tli.e· decision is ~-- 2019 ~me. Therefore, the statement may not be reflectiv~ of the rea:lity obtai~i~g six' years later. Secondly, and most importa~tly, t}ie statement w~s made ~ithout _.ref~rence to any scientific or medical evidence or literatllr~ Further, it Was not even mentioned whether or not the court was takiog judicial n~tice of ihe ·position it was stating. What we found to be helpful in ;that .case, thougb, is the •.dictum of the Hono!Jrable Judge . . • • ., . ' ' .. •• • . . • I ~ .... "' .. . . . seized of the matter who, in Paragraph ·72 of;the judgment, stated as follows, and . we quote with approval;: . " .. . The use of criminat law1 in• relation to HIV should be guided by the best available scientific and medical e~i~ence ~dating to HIV .. . " ·· . ·• .. • ' .. We cannot agree. more. Whether or _not HIV .lias got· a cure is in the realm of medical science, in our-opinioii. And criminal law, ... ~y its very nature, involves curtailing of human rights of o·ffending pers;ns. Ther~(pre, it is only proper that where criminal l~w is ui ~d to regulate human conduct specifically in cases turning on existence or non-existence of HIV cure, then .that ought to lie guided by the best available scientiijc or medical evide.rtc.e. This~ in the Malawian context, means that in criminal cases -~umi~~ on exis.feni,€ or ncfn-existence pf HIV cure, the court is to be guided by the' best available scientific 9r medicai evidence. The court, in our view, may achieve this ;f,y having ;eco~rse t; the e~pert evidence proffered before it, if any, or by takin& judici"~l notice of relevant facJ s, <!,S long . as the relevant scientific or medical bo.oks 'are i°Jroduced b~fore"-it, for its ·a"id. Our position taken here regarding judicial,. no;tice is buttressed by Section 18,2 of the Criminal Procedure and Evide9-ce ·~ode, which we will now look at. Firstly, Section 182(1) of the Criminai,-Procedure and Evidence Code provides that no fact of which the court w1ll take judicial notice need be proved. Secondly:· Section 182(2) of the Criminal Proc~pure • a,id Ev,denc.e Code outlin_es facts which the court shall take judicial notice' of. :fhirdly, Section. 182(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence C~de pi:ovides ihat in all ci ses mention~d subsection (2), and also on matters of, amongst qthers, science,' •the· court may resort for its aid to appropriate books or do.cuments of reference. Fourthly and finally, Section 182(4) of the Criminal Procedure and. Evidence·Code provideg that if the -court is called upon by any person to t~ke Judicial notice of any fact, it may refuse to do so unless and until such person .'produces an such book or document as it may consider necessary to enable it t~ do so. • .. • J • ! "r ·' I • . 1 ,~. . ~ ·l Coming to the present matter, ~hat ~e have just said above- means that, on whether or not HIV has got cure, the court oelow had to have recourse to expert evidence, which, however, was, a;s·we found, never proffered bef~r~ it. In fact, PW 1, under cross-examination, con~eded that that there was, ~n rec·ord: no evidence that HIV has got no cure. Altern,atively, .. the court below had· fo take judicial notice of relevant facts on the su~ject matter. The com'! below was~ however, never called ,.. ... . . .. upon to take jugicial . notice of the non~existence of J -IIV cure, going by the Appellant's submissions on· ca~e to answer tiled ~ith. that court. This, obviously and most importantly, ·mea~s that even the relevant sc{entific or medical books which the court below would have had recourse to fo~_"its· aid had not been produced before it. Therefore, the cot1rt bel~w was perfectly justified, in acquitting the Respondent, to holcl that no exiJert witness pad testified that HIV has got no cure. Further, the court 'below ~as also perfectlf entitled not _to take judicial notice respecting non-existenc:e of HIV cure. We ~o find, w0ich finding is dispositive of Ground ( 5) of the· appeal herein, as above outlined. • ! . . • • I . . , , • .. t i . . . . On the foregoing, we fi.µd that in the present matt~r, thefe,w;:ts, and- s):ill there is, no legal basis for holding· _that there is, presently, no cure for HIV, from what is on record. In the premises, we also find that, if ·at aU the Respondent ever sold Gammora, then there is np probf that he did .so with misleading information. ~ding tliat the Prosecution's evidence outlined above Therefore, it is our further fi had not establisped pri'ma /acie proof of the th~~d element of the 1st Offence, as above isolated. So, with.out even determining. whether th\rre was prima facie proof • of the remaining two elements of the i st O~fence isolated above, as absence of proof of any e_lemerit_ of an offence w~rrants an acquittal (Republic vs. Chimbelenga ([2012] MLR 34.2);" we ultimately find that the court below had correctly acquitted the Respond~~t o.f the 1 ~t Offence. . ~- ' .. . . .. . We now get to the offence ·in the Second Gount, which is making a false or misleading statement in.connection with any medicine or allied substance, contrary to Section 102(1)(m) of thy Ph'armacy and Medicin·~s Regulatory Authority Act 2019 ('the 2 nd Offence') The particulars of the offen~e, as per the charge sheet, read as follows: . . .. ,; . "Between the rrionths or Janu~ry and May pin the -yeilr. 2024, at Zomba in the Republic of Malawi, Godfrey Ching?.lo mad&· various false and·_:misleading_ statements by way of WhatsApp texts alleging that a medicine or allied _substance called Gi,morah and which he had for sale woulsi cure or was .a cure for HIV/AI~." • I• • • . . . . The question that, then, arises here is: what :are the elements of the 2nd Offence? Our starting point shatt be the relevqnt provi~ion itself. Se~'tion 102(l)(m) of the Pharmacy and Medicin.es Reg~atory Authority Act 2.()19 reads as follows: " (1) Any person who- ... t .. . . i,. . ., . . .. ~ ~· -· ~ . . " , (m) makes any false·_-oi- mi~eading statement in connection with any medicine or allied substance; ' ' . • commits an offence an_d shaJ!, upon conviction, be liable to- (i) in the case of a first offe1;-ce,' to .a. fine of. K2,000,o'bo· and imprisonment for two years; and 'i . . • .. , . . . ~ . (ii) in the 'case of a, subseqaent offence, to imprisonment for .six years." From the provision jusf'reproduced above, it is tlear, and we so· find, that the 2nd Offence has got ~-ne main element. That ele~ent is that.the aecused person must have made a statement lJ1. connection with aRy medicine or allied substance which is false. And that is all, ·i~ te~s or th~ actus re~s pf the 2nd Offence. In terms of the mens rea of the 2nd Offerice, there must have been an intention to mislead . . Having determined that· the 21]d Offence, which the RespoHdent.was also charged with and acquitted of, has got one element, we now must determine whether or not that element was met by,the Pros.ecutioLl'S evidence. The lone element of the 2nd Offence, as above. isolat~d, is. that the accused per§on ~ust have ma'de a statement in connection with any µiedi~ine 9r cillied substance wh:1ch is false, ... In this vein, going by the particulars.-Of the 2n~ Offence reproduced above, the gist of the Prosecution's case was that the Respondent had rriade faJse statements connected with Gammora, by his allege~ ~laim that Gam1:11ora was a cure for HIV. Without much ado, it is dear to us that-the sole element of the 2nd. Offence is essentially the same as the third element of the 1st Offence alreaay dealt with above. Therefore, the position we have ta~en above regarding whether or not HIV has got a cure applies here mutatis mu_tandis, In the premtsoo~ we _reiterate our-finding that in the present matter, there was; and stlll there is, no legal basfs for holding that there is, presently, no cure for ~IV, from what is on record. In the same vein, we find that, if at all the Respondent ever· made a staten;ien( to the effect that Gammora was a cure for HIV, then there is no pr'oof that that statem,ent wpiJ false. Therefore, it is our further finding that the Prosecution_' s evid~nce outlined above had not established prima facie 'proof. of the ~ole element of the 2nd Offence,' as above isolated. So, we ultimately find that the·couh below had correctly acquitted the Respondent of the 2nd (?ffende. . . •· • • . . . . ' . . .. ·O .. . ~ • • .. ,;: ~ C. - • • The immediately foregoing finding, in our optnion, _means that it w~ll be an academic exercise. for UIS·to proceed to determine whether th~re had been prima , . ' , 14 .. ' . facie proof of the mens fea oft}te 2nd Offence:,We shall not embark upon such an exercise, accordingly. T:his, t~en; takes us to consideratio~ ot.the third offence in issue herein. And that ii exactly what we are going to do, from the immediately succeeding paragraph. . . ' A • . Getting to the offence in the Third Count, which, rs obtaining by false pretences, contrary to Section 319. of the Penal Code ('the 3rd Qffence'): The particulars of the offence, as per the charge she'et,".r:_ead as fo1lows: .. , . " • .. ~ • ~ "Between the m~nths of"January and May in tne yea; ·2024, at Z9mba in the Republic of Malawi, Godfrey Chingo~o by a -representation which was false in fact, namely that his medicine or allied subst~nce called Gomorah was a cure for HIV/ AIQS, obtained various sums of money from v~:iou; persons. 'in exchange for the said Gopi.orah as a cure for HIV/AIDS." • The question that~ then:,. arises is: what are.,.the element~ of the ) rd Offence? Our starting point shall be 'the rel'evant provision: itself. Sectio_n 319(1) of the Penal Code reads as follows: • • • • - "(1) Any person who by any false pretenc~, and ;Nith intent to defraud, obtains from any other person anything caiYable,of being st_olen, or a1:1y services, or inpuces any other person to deliver to any person anything capable o~ being stolen shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall' be liable to imprisonment for five years. ' ' The definition of 'false·•·pretenc'e' is ~ontained in °Sec~ion 318 of the Penal Code, which reads as foUows:-· • .. . . '' Any representasion made by words, writing or conduct, of a matter of fact, either past or present, which representation. ~s fitlse in fact, anti whi~h" the person m9-king it knows to be false or does not believe to be true, __ is a false pretence.'' • From the two provisions just reproduced above, it is· clear, and we so find, that the 3rd Offence has g9t two ·main "elements. The first t lement of the offence is that the accused person m°ust have mac;ie a false pret;nc_e a·s defined,j,p Secti(m 318 of the Penal Code. The second element of the offence is that the accused person must ti have, through the false pretence, obtaiRed from any other person anything capable of being stolen or services. Alternatively, the accused person must have, through the false pretence, induced any other person to deliver to any person anything capable of being stolen. That is all in terms of the actus r,eus of the 3rd Offence. In terms of the mens rea of.the, Yd Offence, there _must hav~ been ap intent to defraud . . . .. . . . , . -. ; . . . ., Having determined the elements-of the 3rd Offence, which offence the Respondent had been charged with and' eventually acquitted of,. we now .. must determine whether or not the elements "':'€re met by the Prosecution's evidence. We start with the first element of thi offence. The first element of the 3rd Offence, as above isolated, is that the accµsed p~roon must have made a fals@ pretenere as defined in Section 318 of the Pe!).al C.odet In this vein, g~ing by the particµlars of the 3rd Offence reproduced a~ove, the gi~t ~.of the Prosecution's case was that the Respondent had made a fals~ pretence by sending WhatsApp texts on a WhatsApp group claiming that Garn-mora.w~s a cure for HIV. According to th~ Appellant, that alleged statement by the ·Respondent was false because ~here is, presently, no cure for HIV. Hence the Appellant's position th(lt sueh a statement constituted false pretence. Without~ mucn ·ado: it is clear to us that the this ·first element of the 3rd Offence is essentially the same;~ ~he ·third element of t~e 1st Offence already dealt with above. Therefore, the positfon we have taken above ·regarding whether or not HIV has got a cur~ appiies here mutatis mutandis. In the premises, y.re reiterate our finding that in the present rµat~r, there was; and still tliere is, no legal basis for holding that there is, presently, ·no cure for HIV, frorp. wli;it is qn record. In the same vein, we find that'.~·if at all the Respondent ever made a statement to the effect that Gammora was a cure fo~ HIV, then there is no proof that that statement was false, meaning that there was no false pretence. Therefore, it is omt further finding that the Prosecution's ·evidence olitlined above ·had not · t!stablished prima facie proof of the first elemept of_ the 3rd Offence, as aboye jsolated. So, without even determining whether there was prima fade proof of the second and,last element of the 3rd Offence is_olated above, as absence of proof of. any el~ment of an offence warrants an acquittal (Rep~blic vs. Chimbelenga. supra), we ultimately find that 't • the court below h~d coq~ctly ac4uitted the Respondent. of the 3rd Offence. . . . . ' • ·. •. • . . . Getting to the offence iii ·the F 04rth Count, it .is conspiracy to defraud, contrary to Section 323 of the Pen~l Code ('the 4th Offence'). The ·particulars of the offence, as per the charge sheet, read as follow~: ~ • • . "Between the months orJanuary and May in the year 2024; at Zomba in the Republic of Malawi, Godfrey Chingolo conspired with another person yet unknown to defraud the public various suws of money through the use-of a representati;n ~hich was false in fact, namely that their medici:qe of. allied sub~tance called. Gomorah was a cure ~or HIV/AIDS, and indeed obtained various sums,q,f money from various persons in exchange for the said Gomorah as a cure for HIV/AID~," • •. :.. • ~ . . . .. . . . We shall start by dete~ining the elements q{ the 4th Offence. In this regard, our starting point shclll be the relevant provision creating the offence. Section 323 of the Penal Code reads as follows: . . '' Any person who conspires with anortier by dec~it or any other fraudulent means to affect the market price of anything publicly sold, or to defraud the. public, or any person, whether a particular person or not, or to ·extort ;my property from any person, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to jmprisoruflent for three years." · · •, • .. • • . ' ' #' From the provisiqn just rep_r~duced· ab~ve, it i~ clear, an·d we so find, that the 4th Offence has got two main· elem~nts. · The first element of •the offence is that the accused person m1:1st have (?Onspired with another person. The second and last element of the offence is that the conspiracy by the ace.used }Vith the other person must have been to, by cfeceit or any other fraudulent means, affect the market price of anything publ~dy sold or t~ aefra~d the gener~l pub1io/ any ,per~on or to extort any property from any persQp. . • . • - ~- .,"' ~ ~, " ~ " • • • • - ,II • .. Having determined the elements· of the 4th Offence, which offence the Respondent had been charged___ wit~ and ~wentually acquitted ot we . now must determine whether or not those elem~nts were met by' the Prosecution's evidence. We start with the second element of the offence, for t~asons that will become obvious. The second element ot the 4th (?ffence~ as above isqlated, is that the conspiracy the • ~ " . • . . . accused is alleged to have made with another person must have been to, by deceit or any other fraudulent p:ieans, affect the market price 9f anything publicly sold or to defraud the general public/any person or to exto:r:t any property from any person. However, in view ~f tht· piitic~lars of'the 4th Offence, the second element of the offence relevant ·h~te i~ th.;i_t th~ ·conspiracy the :accused is alleged to have made must have been to,. by ,decefr ot an)' ·other fraudulent means, defraud the general public. In this vein, goiµg by _tlie particulars of the 4th • Offenc~ reproduced above, the gist of the Prosecution's case was .that the Resp~ndent had, conspired with through a to . defraud another person, unknowri yet, representation that Gaminora ·was a pure for HIV. According to the Appellant, that alleged claim by the Respondent constituted .. deceit or fraudulent· means by which he intended to def~ul~the public, be~use there is no cure for HIV at present. Without much ado, it is. clear to· us that this second cl~ment of the 4th Offence is essentially the sam~ a~. th;_ third el~ment of :the 1st _Off~ce already dealt with above. Therefore, ~p.e p0~ition we have taken above regarding whether or not HIV has got a cure applies .here __ mutatis mutandis. In the premises, we reiterate our the gener;:tl public . .. . . • . I . . , r i' ,. ' • C ~ ' • ... I '? ' . . . . finding that in the present matter, there was, arid still there is, n°0 legal basis for holding that the.te· .-is, presently, no cure for HIV, from what' .. is on record. Accordingly, we find that, if at all . the Respondent had conspired with some unknown person tcy ma~ a ·claim to the effect that Gammora was a cure for HIV, then there is no pr,oof that the agreement was to defraud the ge,neral public through that claim. In the premises, it. is our .further. finding that the '. Prosecution's evidence outlined above had not ,established prima facie proof of the second element of the 4th Offence, as ab.ove i'solate~L So, without e;e~ determining whether there was prima facie proof o,f the first element of the 4th Offence~.isolated above, as absence of proof of any ylem,ent · of -an offence -~warrants · an· ·acquittal (Republic vs. Chimbelenga silpra), we ultimately •fin<iil • that the ·court below had correctly acquitted the Respo~de~t of the 4th Offence'. t ' Getting to the offence .·in t}:i~ Fifth Count, it i~ advertising · medicines or allied substances without approval, contrary to Section 68 as.read with Se'Ction 102(1)(d) of the Pharmacyr and Me.d~cines Regulatory Authority Act 2019 ('the 5th Offence'). The particulars of the offence, as per the charge she{)t, read as follows: .. . ~ . ' "Between the months of Janl!ary and. May in the year 2024, ; t Zomba in the Republic of Malawi, Godfrey Chingolo for the purposes of promoting, directly or indirectly, the sale of a certain medicine or aUied substance called Gom<?rah, adveitis&i the said medicine by way of WhatsApp, texts . and -0ther social media platforms without prior screening or approval of the said advertisement. by Pharmacy and Medicines Re~latory Authority." . We shall start by determining the elements of the .. 5t~ Offence. In this regard, our starting point shall be c.onsideration of th.e rel~v!lnt provisil)ns. Section 68 of the Pharmacy and Medicines Regu-latory Authority _Act 2019 .reads as follows: "(l) Advertisement of any medicme or.allied sub$tance shall conform to the information relating to the me~icine or allied substance approved by the Authority and as specified in the marketing authorization. ' (2) Advertisement of any medicine or allied sul9stance· shall ·reqll,ij'e prior screening and approval by the Authority.. • • . ' (3) A medicine or allied substkce which is sold by pres~rjptiob only shall not be advertised to the genera(public. •. • •• • • • . . . (4) In this section,. "adverj:isement" means any representation bfarly means whatsoever for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the sale or disposal of any medicine or allied substance. -~ • • (5) Any person who contravenes this section commits an offence."_ f . . .. ' . . ... • • . ·~ . . . ... .. • It must be noted that the definitipn of•' advertisement' g1ven in sub-section 4 of the provision reproduced above is. the same a~ that which is provided in Section 2 of the Pharmacy and Medicines _ Regulatory ·_Autborify Act 2019. And Section 102(l)(d) of the Pharm~cy·and Medicines' Regulatory Authority Act 2019 reads as follows: • • "(1) Any person who- . .; . •, . - . . . (,\ , (d) contravenes or fa'ils to comply with any provision of this Act, or any directive, Regulation, order, cendi'tion, requirep{ent or· request -~nade thereunder; .. . . . \ commits an offence and shall; upon conviction; be liabfe to- (i) in the ~ase of a first offence: to a fine of K.2,000,000 and imprisonment for two years; and (ii) in the case of a sub.sequent offence, -to imprisonment for si..x years:.,' • I . ~ . From the provisiops just reproduced above, it is clear, and we so find, that the 5th . Offence has got two main elements. The first elemen~ of the offence is that the accused person must have m~de. fill 'adyertisement', as.defined in Section 68(4) of the Pharmacy and Medicines Regulatory Authority Act 2019, of the medicine or allied substanee. The secorlil el~ment of the offence · is 1.h;lt the advertisement must have been made without prior approval by the- Pharmacy and Medicines Regulatory Authority (' fhe PM~'). That is all, in terms of the actus reus of the 5th Offence. In terms of tfi.~ mens ;ea of the 5th Offence; there mus~ have been an intention to advertise. -, . • ' , ., Having determined the elements of the 5th Offence, whi~h offence the Respondent had been chargeq with and ·· eventually acquitted of, we now must determine whether or not those elements were met by the ·Pros~cution's evidence. We start with the second element of- the offence,r as above. isolated, which is that the advertisement must have been made without prior approval by the PMRA. In this vein, going by the particulars 6'f the 5th Offence reproduced abo"~' the gist of the Prosecution's case -was that the Respondent had 3:dvertised Gammora without prior approval by the PMRA. In this appeal, the Appellant solely relies on a confession made by the Respondent in Exhibit P 6. By Exhibit P 6, the Respondent confessed that he did not have pe1;11issfon ro advertise any medicine/allied substance. In this appeal, the Appellant reli~s on that cm1fessiory., in submitting that the second element of the 5th offence, as above isolated, had been prov~d by the Prosecution' s IJ •. .. . .. • ' • . ~ ... . evidence. Section 176(1) .of the Criminal Proced~re and Evidence Code provides for the : admissibility• of a confession by an accused person. Most importantly, Sectio~ 1 ?6(~). of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code provides that evidence· of :~ confession•. admitte~ under:· the above-mentioned provision may be taken into account by a 't,cmrt if such court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the confossion was made by the accused and that its contents are materially tru~e. If the court js not ~Q •satfsfied, the provision further provides, then it shall give n6 weight whatsoever to slich evidence. In our most-considered opinion, the need for the confession's contents to be 'materially true' as a prerequisite for weight,.being attached thereto simply means that there must be corroboration of those conte.qt3 by other evidertce independent of the accused's confession (see Bokhobokho & Anor vs. Rep [2001] MWSC 5). Coming back to the matter at hand, by Exhibit P 6, as we have already mentioned, tlie Respondent confessed that he did not h.ve permission to adv.ertise any medicine/allied substance. Therefore, in. view_ of what has just been stated above, before we attach any weight to the said Respondent's confession, there are two issu~s that we must decide on. The fir.strissue is whether we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that . the confession was made by the Respondent. The second issue is whether the confession was corrob9ratea bJ other evidence independent of the confession itself. We answer. the first is~ue in the affi~ativ~, a~ it is not in_ 9ispute that the confession was made by the ~espondenr Regarding-t4e ·second iss~~ we answer it in the negative, for · reasons we will now give. We have c;ritically examined the Prosecution's evidence in its totality. In terms of oral• evidence, there was nothing that came out frorri PW 1 :s testimc>ny tendiJig to con:oborate the Respondent's confession in this. regard. And resp~cting dqcumentary ~vidence, PW 1, under cross-examination, conceded that thete was no· ·dotument tendered to show that the Respondent did not have a _licent:e ;r authority to sell the drug. Being a regulator, PMRA should be h;wing a data base containing names· of .all persons licensed or authorized, at any given. time;-regailf:iing the various regulated aspects of medicines or allied substances that they overse~. So, one wouhl have expected PW 1 to tender in evidence a prin~out from their data base showing ·a fist of persons authorized to advertise various medicines · or allied substances. Such a fist would have easily shown whether or 'not the Respond~nt did have authority to advertise Gammora. However, such aJist, or any other do·cument wi!h similar effect, wc1:s not produced before the court below, In the premises, we find that there is no other evidence, . . - ~ . . • .. .. I . . , independent of the Respond~nt's confession, that corroborates it: Accordingly, we shall not attach anyrweight to the Respondent' s confession.in issue here. Therefore, it is our further fip.ding that_ the. Pro~ocution's evidence outlined above had not established prima facie proof of the second element of .the 5th Offence, as above isolated. So, withm.\t even det~miining whethe~ there was prima facie proof of the first element of the .5 Offenct isolated above, as·t1bsence of proofpf any element of an offence warrants an acquittal (Republic vs.-Chimbelenga supra), we finally find that the court below had ·correctly acquitteq the Respon_cie~t of the 5th Offence. th • . On the foregoing; we ultimately find that the . court below did not err in law in finding the Respondent with no case to answ~r on a}l the five counts. In other words, the court below corre~tly acquitted the. Respondent of all the five offences. Ground ( 1) of the a,ppeal herein fails, therefore.· . ~ ,. In view of the imrp.ediately foregoing finaing that_ the court below"did not err in law in finding the Respondent •~ith no case to 1,ln$wer on all the five counts, it . means that tackling the rest_ ~f the grounds of' the appeal herein would be an academic exercise:-And yVe ~p,a.11 not embark upon such an exercise in futility . . . . . Disposal • .. . . '... . In view of the foregoing findings a.id reasoning, w.e dis1!1is~ the present appeal in its entirety, hereby. , •• •• • Accordingly, the ruling ·of the_ court below, dated 19th August, 2024, acquitting the Respondent of all th~ five offentes herein is,. hereby; upheld.: . Pronounced in Open Court at Zomba this 19th day of December 20~ .. s D .~~~ i . • , . . \ -·•JUDGE • • .. ' .