Zwimba v People (S.C.Z. Judgment 18 of 1988) [1988] ZMSC 2 (25 January 1988)
The High Court erred in increasing the sentence without providing reasons, and none of the established grounds for increasing a sentence were present.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1988] ZMSC 2
- Parties
- Appellant: David Zwimba; Respondent: The People
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- S.C.Z. Judgment 18 of 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Appeals, Increase of Sentence
- 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
David Zwimba
Appellant
The People
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court was justified in increasing the appellant's sentence without giving reasons
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court erred in increasing the sentence without providing reasons, and none of the established grounds for increasing a sentence were present.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- The increased sentence of five years imprisonment with hard labour is set aside.
- The original sentence of three years imprisonment with hard labour is restored with effect from 3rd February 1986.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
DAVID ZWIMBA v THE PEOPLE (1988 - 1989) Z. R. 107 (S. C.) SUPREME COURT SILUNGWE, C. J., GARDNER, AG. D. C. J., AND CHAILA AG. J. S. 26TH JANUARY 1988 (S. C. Z. JUDGMENT NO. 18 OF 1988) Flynote Sentence - Increase of sentence by appeal - Principles on which increase can be made. Headnote On conviction the appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment. He appealed and the High Court increased the sentence to five years without giving reasons for the increase. The appellant appealed . Held: The only reasons for increasing the sentence are (1) where a minimum statutory sentence has not been imposed (2) where the sentence imposed by the lower Court was totally inadequate and (3) where the original sentence was wrong in principle. In person. G. S. Phiri, Senior State Advocate. For the appellant: For the respondent: ______________________________________________ Judgment GARDNER, AG. D. C. J.: delivered the judgment of the Court. The appellant was convicted of indecent assault on a female, and sentenced to three years imprisonment with hard labour. On appeal to the High Court the appeal against conviction was dismissed and the sentence was increased to five years imprisonment with hard labour. The appellant now appeals against the sentence. p108 When imposing the increased sentence the learned Judge gave no reasons for doing so. This Court has frequently stated that there are only three reasons for increasing sentence. They are, firstly, if a minimum statutory sentence has not been imposed, secondly, if the sentence imposed by the lower Court was totally inadequate, and, thirdly, if the sentence originally imposed was wrong in principle. As we have said, in this case the learned appellant Judge gave no reasons for the increase in sentence, and there does not appear to us to be any valid reason. The appeal against sentence is allowed. The increased sentence of five years imprisonment with hard labour is set aside, and we restore the original sentence of three years imprisonment with hard labour with effect from 3rd February 1986. Appeal allowed. ______________________________________________