Kibaya v The People (SCZ APPEAL NO. 164/1985) [1991] ZMSC 55 (5 March 1991)
The trial judge believed the prosecution evidence and there was no misdirection; therefore, the conviction stands.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1991] ZMSC 55
- Parties
- Appellant: Edward Kibaya; Respondent: The People
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- SCZ APPEAL NO. 164/1985
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Aggravated Robbery, Appeal Against Conviction
- 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
Edward Kibaya
Appellant
The People
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for aggravated robbery was supported by the evidence
- 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected himself in assessing the evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge believed the prosecution evidence and there was no misdirection; therefore, the conviction stands.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA SCZ APPEAL NO. 164/1985 HOLDEN AT NDOLA (Criminal Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: • 1 ' EDWARD KIBAYA Appellant -v- THE PEOPLE Respondent CORAM: Gardner, A. J. S., Sakala and Chaila JJ. S. 5th March 1991 For the Appellant: In person .. ■ <• For the Respondent: Mr. K. Lwali, Assistant Senior State Advocate : 4 > JUDGMENT Gardner, A. J. S. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery. The particulars of the offence were that he, together with others, at Solwezi, being ■ armed with a stick, stole from Elisdn Mingelesi Chundu a bicycle and a jacket. The prosecution evidence was to the effect that the. complainant was assaulted by two,people one of whom used a stick against him. In the course of the assault, the complainant said his jacket was , stolen. The complainant gave evidence that when he was at the Police Station, he saw the accused, now the appellant, who apologised to him for having stolen his jacket and told him that the. appellant's father would return the jacket to him. On this evidence the appellant was ’ convicted. ' t j.. * . In this court he has argued that he did not take the stolen items. However, the learned trial judge heard the evidence and believed the prosecution evidence given. In no way did the learned judge misdirect himself. /. J- This appeal cannot succeed. The appeal is. dismissed. B. T. GARDNER ?. E. U SAKALA AG. SUPREME COURT JUDGE ........... SUPREME COURT JUDGE §Qp^MTOb6r JUDGE .'