Isaac Ngoma v People (Appeal No. 98 of 1985) [1987] ZMSC 99 (23 February 1987)
The conviction was unsafe because the presence of the stolen goods in the house could reasonably be attributed to someone other than the appellant, and thus his guilt was not the only reasonable inference.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1987] ZMSC 99
- Parties
- Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Appeal No. 98 of 1985
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Aggravated Robbery, Receiving Stolen Property, Evidence, Reasonable Inference
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Appellant
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for aggravated robbery was safe given the evidence regarding possession of stolen property
- 2 Whether the only reasonable inference from the presence of stolen goods was the appellant's guilt
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was unsafe because the presence of the stolen goods in the house could reasonably be attributed to someone other than the appellant, and thus his guilt was not the only reasonable inference.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- conviction quashed
- sentence set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA .. HOLDEN AT LUSAKA \ . J l I ' j i .... '. · ·: .· ::. ·~:< :,::dfr\'.~]~';1,:r;,~f ~ardner, J. S.,· del1vtrtd th•cJudgaent<IJf the court~ ' · , ·< ;:;: · ··•· • _, ·-· •. -~- • . .. f. •_i.:·.·:,. ··.,_'.\'.;~;).:L:/°?/(}{/./?};;;,}://ft(_:::\)t;\L/:. ,· ,n··.•t.ti.1W•'-)f/,·-'ttc1F·'l!cr~:!:ll1i,,.,ijJ",•>c1s1,~•.;,: The, appel l~nt.,.~•s· c~n~.l~~~~:.~fi ~g~[~,~~t.~~jtR~A'~:!~~~:t::;l.);,:r:.::- .. ,. , ,.,·, ,.,,,, , .... ;,,,·,l·•,.-,,.fff.,. ,. . particulars being~'lhat he, together with other co-accused,. on ·the 6th of October, 1983; at Ndola, jointly and 'whilst acting together,. robbed Francis Musonda Katai Of hl_s _moto~;,;_~Jit<:Ie/tifJ~1;f;;l,$1l.f,: ·. 'i'-"~,:·.--., _;'•:r~,:,~·:,r·•' -,.·; \, ··'. . .. and other property valued in total' at K10, 930,8511 ·.and:at'time·of '· ··1.,•, . .- :,r· ]·', -'. ;· ·-,. \ i -.~,-:-,---.:.i,.-• "'!-~~· I' l '.~'1 •' ' . _., .... • . •·- .. _ ·• • , I . ' \ \ ' ' ' such robbery did use actual viol.enc,.,c: ,; .. ·· .•i'.;:;tf:\i\\j~,}f:::~\:}.;.',;• .... The·•f~tts of the case were that there·was •an'.aggravated· "9f>ber,v in which the:complainant had the items lllfl!l~ioned. ip; t~~: ~h~~ge, $tplen. . from hilil, and approximately six days later th~,:~!t~~yJs:~~p'\s~J,stolen · in the robbery together with other items referred to·1n:the charge· were found ln a house said to be occupied by the •PP!i!llant. · _;c,..•i/-\f,~.':fr,\:~ . .,· · ' Mr. Mwiinga the learned Director Q(Publi1?,fr<1~ecutions.\:, indicated to this court that the State 1d "~-f~p,'e~d,'}~,XcP.~r~fti,pn •.. · for aggravated robbery and Mr. Kayukwa argued a number oC grounds · · · of appeal on behalf of the 11ppe11aL,. there was evidence from the appellant's _b~oth~r .t.~~t,'t,~e, .hous! wher~., the stolen goods were found belonged to him and at;.the televan:t t,imci . · . ·. In particular i1..'~as ~rgaed that : , t, ·:.: :,~·i'.-;' -;:?·•~;~0•"..,_\<-1;·,. !~ .;a. ,'_~,>t· _: ·_,,,-.,. -, ~,,.,•, .. ~ •-•" . ~~M•••~•• --• ',,'->r4s,.',,,_,., ...,, ·, ~ •-, ·1 t,• · ' I . ' ' ' . . . . . . ' ' . . ,. '; . ; , , --. .. • "! • . , , , ,. .., ·: • .•f' . . 'r:-. ,. •· •·. ,,_., .• , . , , . .-.-.••. ·,, '··: • ' . ,,.,_, • ' . ·•·• '~ f/.'·i'•J•,/•. ,_, ,·. ,,-' r•••,4: ' ! " J, ,' --~---i ...... ~-- '._,,_ .~J•~':,;,:• :,•.i•l.•,···, ,·,.,.:~•,;.\,'I_ · ','',:,(.,·,•;/1~:- ·\_;•;· ."-~ fF:5 .. : t( ·,. :12,:t,i;~? . : ,{~~.-'.;,;({,/_ :;/!if, rr.~t;1i311t\,t: ' . . . · .. he·· had allowed the·appeUant and,an~ther·!lla.n called Moses,Changall'. J:ilk>,1:;: ., to occupy the ijouse. There was furt.her evidence from pl"osec~i.!>i'f witnesses that ·when the police approached ,the house,~ere the .~t&fen)"' goods were found the appellant was .not there.and .thatl· a, man, who.w~S,'':,'-,~ . ~ ·_ '. • ···f :-: }-:.;-~ (.' ,; not identified as the appellarrt.;s1·a1l,JWA)'., · ... · , . ;,,µr,::: t,i,,1,;,, tfr/;1(':k"'"f. •· '._. :, : .... • '• . • .. ,I' ;,:\.•,~~;,;;-j:• I.:,,:::'::{'..-.);'.·, :: · \ ••:;':\\~•::~r', ··'.' · ln the course of his jlld~nt~tt•11med:t~lil'}jtcl~e'. ,;id Moses Changala is either a fictitious person or, par;t: Q.t'\th&;;g,,ig<who raided the residence of the three 1pr1,sts. and -ro~~~ .th~ of.. j:ft~ .. · . , various items of property, in the r;ompany.·of the,~e~o~cfaccu~.e(lpe~son '· (the appellant). It was argued that; ln v1e,(,.9f i~e. Jf~: that ,thE!:, . . · learned trial judge was prepared to accept,;J~~t, Ji;,w~~~pos,s~)le that Moses Changala could have beel) .responsible for tht;~r,~ience Qf:t~e • . ·. stolen goods in the house;) itt~rir;Jiijiilgt,;;, ~vl<;!e,ri~;: t~,,'.~/iQW :that.the· ' ' . appellant and Moses Changala acted,ln c<>nc11~{ :the ij.~ll~,C?f:t,he , - . · appellant was not the only reasonable 1nfererice,Jhat.,¢ou~c:f'~tt,,~r,~~:::r:rom,,~ the· presence of the· stolen articles. frli,the llpus~~< Pn heariog thJi · · · ..• • · argument the learned ,Dire<;:tor c,f !>µijU¢ . P.,rQ~!•~~J.19,:is/veryzp,;oµ,.~f~Y,;,,;"·-•~•:" indicated that the .. st~t,,.:,~,fc:f;,,?Jtt,,5:.~~et~:':Jttr-1rlitl;?"·qtJ,e}i '.c, , ·,,,; \). ,, , iC:;i <.'.h': r:· .. appellant for receivlng stolen· prop-,~ •. ·\.' . . ,:;'· , , .!,' .. ,, ... ,,., .,, 1::.t'.:\/ r.:\~~A·.:1r~•.ii\<·-~_.i\_·:·:·!:::_.r:t:~{1/t)<t/·-.. _:·t: · we ·agfee :w1 thi bothi cou~selctJi~ti i tt~·~ttwri,t1~~~:l~Ji~~1,b.~f,~l: : ·•• ... learned trial: jUdg• that· Moses Charigala 'co1,114r pes,lbJy b!t;,responst~le · · for the presence of the stolen· goods fri ttii1~or.-se:' the:'gUiJ't, o,f{the .' ' ap,ellant was not the only reasonable'infe~i,c~' th!lt ·cpuld{be:tdta~~;.; The apr;eal is allowed. the conviction ts qii4shed· and t~"''.sent,enqe.·~s set aside. ~-.;_;, .. ·,~:••-:,.';:.~,,.;._\~;,1-·.~i-~ .. ,'.''"·t?>:,::,1•'.,;~~-;,;:._:~:-:";;'.',,·{:·",.: '--:.c._•. _ , · . , . ... ,,.·,,(,.:,,,· ... ·~1 . . · , , ,' ... ,,, .·~ •_··,] ·'··1•·;'·',;.•.~•-\',.l,\°:,'' _;;'.j ! 1/,•·';'-),:•/ :-:,.-•..,,,,;·. --~~.,-,.,:~•-:i,•·'· ,.··~·.;,_;·j' -,af-,. ,,._...,. ri•}: -' .,·.\·-\~:\,,·1·',-' .. :--''.,, •' 1 -~ ·c'••1 . 'r ,, •. . ·.·•.•-· .·, ·I•·. ·.'.:.:-:-"/·· .: - .. ,,>' . • • ,,;_Li,· , •, ',/,,, "'' .~. '. • • • , ! __ ,. ' - ., ', • •• ,. •• : . _. ,_.. a . · .- :' • ,, · . . ·. , · · : •. • • • • . . ' ; -