Choonga v People (Appeal 73 of 1988) [1988] ZMSC 72 (8 November 1988)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA Appeil No. 73 of 1988 holden at Lusaka ns of iifs appeal against sentence the appellant has ther was aggressive towards him* and that ’ ‘r U-:!l h??. a responsibility to maintain two wives, - :■ ■ fWhflWbU am ABRellant, . : !’ Ms UM brother. lhe-y-pe.il ant says that he has CORAM: Gardner, Ag. D. C. J.,BweupeandChailaAg. JJ. S.,^ THE PEOPLE Respondent - T'- J? M r^-r . । * .• ••;.!! 8th November, 1988 , to go to prison it is his frilly and t^t lORWly ih8 courts however have a duty to 0unl$h . N. Sivakumaran, Acting Senior StatesAdvocate^fort the respondent : . - it /iffi! to th* appellant and to others. In this particular ~ i,-... i--: a x:nibn wnapon in tne form or a spear • “ 1 , j f •> jr rW/rnpj.iry senLohJe. GVfe^oould^only reduce the sentence ’’’”7T7M‘7T^—-rM~nT-T^7Sr7}nirTrrprFjc^ Gardner, Ag. P. C. J.., delivered the: Judgment of rthe. tcou^ ’ic-M wrong in principle, nor does It coma to us The appellant was convicted ojy mans laughter^ of the offence being that on,the?.12th:pfcAugust,! 1986,pat?rGwembe, he did unlawfully kill Thomas Nsemani. He was originally charged with murder.??1 agabist sentence is dismissed. ,;4: The facts of the case as adduced by the prosecution were that the appellant quarrelled with his brotier the deceased. The quarrel concerned the improper rehtions.which, the. appellant.alleged, his brother the deceased'had had with one of'the, appellant Is wives. There was evidence which was accepted by the court that the"appellant came upon his brother who was ^walking in the fields. He complained that his brobher had had improper relations with one of his wives and had ordered the appellant to leave the village. A fight ensued during the course of which-;the, appellant stabbed his brother with a spear as a result of which^thelbrotheh2diedlSljy^ The learned trial judge found that the appellant was provoked into the attack on his brother, and therefore, he reduced the original charge from murder and copyicted.the,appellant.of.the.• offence of manslaughter. The appellant was’sentenced to ten years imprisonment with hard labour and it is against that sentence .../J2 only ... - J2 - only that he how'iappeals.^ Appeal,Ho. 73 of 1988.; rCU//'# a? LUSAKA :. •'■•■'.'■ In support of his appeal against sentence the appellant has argued that his late brother was aggressive towards him, and that he, the appellant has a responsibility to maintain two wives, the wives of the deceased, ten children of his own and flteen children of his late brother. The-appellant says that he has learnt his lesson. THE PEOPLE Respondent * We have consideredcthe arguments :for(reductiondnsentence put forward by the appellant. .. It is regrettable, that In nearly C;< (• l-'OT 'r. if'i' . I > every case where a man has to go to prison it is his family and dependants who suffer. The courts however have a duty to punish wrongdoing and in so doing to impose/sentences which;;wi11;acttent as a deterrent to the appellant and to others. In this particular case the use of a lethal weapon in the form of a"spear • 1 £ c tr t 7-------- " calls for an exemplary sentence. We could only reduce the sentence if we found that it was wrong in principle/or’ IVcame to' us'with"" a sense of shock. The sentence of ten years imprisonment with hard labour is not wrong in principle, nor does it come to i Jus with a sense of shock. Sentences of this magnitude must be imposed in order to deter people from Presorting fto lethal ^ weapons (toRe­ settle quarrels h ».:: t .a j \ ■ Ui u 5 Thomas Nsewaai., He was originally charged with The<appeal against sentence Is dismissed fac ts of the case- as adduced by the prosecution were ' * • ■ ’’ .'k Li -‘'V appellant quarrelled with his brefcer the deceased. The '• improper . B. T., Gardner r .... ‘-wives ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE 1 y c.';;? op. r ,o > bvnth'jr whu w/s • walking in the fields. . He complained that his broLbor had hsd bwproper relations with one of his wives ■ and ordered the appellant to leave the village. A flqht'*^ sn >f ■’■/hi<-tMitS.<Chailant'stabbed his brot^'r ; ACTING SUPREME COURT JUDGE )■<<i\iKi tjudge found that the'appellant was provoked: Ite- is;ms brother, therefore, he reduced the cNMrM f.h"p-v f-v.in'sr and ■’ , B. K. Bweupe .. . ACTING SUPREME COURT JUDGE 1 .. . • . r : ' • I . I • > . 11 ■ ■ .../J2 only ...