Enias Ncube and Anor v The People (Appeal Nos 9 and 10 of 1980) [1989] ZMSC 124 (9 May 1989)

--" . ... IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA : Appeal Nos 9 and 10 of 1980 (Criminal ·Jurtsdtctlon) ·":. ·.,,·, ('1·~ 1i•~:. ;.s~ -~~ O\'io;.:,,1::1: .. ,-.;·i.·>:'.-:tdly to:ft!':c . EN,IAS· NCUBE ,'. ··J !-;-~ •: ! Y1~t Appeliant; t AARON MAZIMBA · : - 2nd Appellant ' : - y ,- . ,·,:•·:·,,THE:•PEQPLE- z·.1.i l.! !':,1S C:t , :"'': Respondent ;:.-r_ I . · CORAM: Ngulube, D. C. J. • Sakala and Challa, , JJ. S • .- • i•. - , \, : :,:_·, -.. 1 i t,~ .-..h•, < ...... ~ r, i si:i f V't".: U en ,-.,·,: :. : ;~: l e.t !Y!tti - - ·m '·.·_ i.;:-:~<l tr: :'- ;:~f:rsu .. Y ~v idence ofp;~ ,:·:' •.:::/ ';? ?'Pi$ t ,iL -•,,- . J - +9th. M3v t·19A9 . . ,} . ,( · v, ••c,-i :..r,. ~,Y~ • , . . . ; . . , .... , • . . • , .• ;i~}'.f;·.":.~ liJ ~~,~~i/.\l, .... , .. {., ~f1. U1L.- 1,,c.. .... _ ....... . .}\:~,~ '• ·.,' -.,.l..,. ,?, ·· l • ~ s.s. Zulu, of;Zulu an_d; C_~pa~Y-~-/9r:~~, 1.t.~,t.~.~~ll,,~t; · - . :- ,';•t.i >:·;>. .. L. P. Mwanavasa. of Mwanawasa . and Company. for. the . Ind . appellant .. -... •, , ., - . . . F. N. Mwiinga. Director of Public Prosecutions, tor :the respondent .. , .,·. •'• --· .. , . . ' ' .. ,,· . . . ,. . . . : ' • ,.. - L. .. ,t •• r .-. • ; ( • :, • ; . ! I· ·. """' t ..,,. ,h The appellants were sentenced·to· twenty years imprisonment wlth Tf' ' JP 1'!'1 .,. -·t .,,..,,1 '.'' • ' i • • • rt ~ "'' " - "" t>•. - u~ .!...nt• . :-,, ••.. -~- ...... ·,r :-,v. ' ' 1 , . , • • • • • • • , ' ; : · , . • • • ... f • .. . 1·• "" t" • :·. ♦ • • ~.. .. ;-' · ,. - :·. . . ... : 1 ) l •·• :~ : •·•. , ' ' : - · , ... t .•· ,.. ·1 ~ • f~'\:"-\ "~ . . ·: i """'<")r ~ i · , 1 .. ' · , . .-.r,i • · t·l:·'- hard labour in consequence of their conviction on a charge of aggravate( , , robbery. The particulars· of the offence "were that the.two of .them jointly and whilst acting together on 15th FeQruary, 1985, _at K~twe, · I • • " ' • • l \ • ' I ( ' • , G 1 .: -· .-,.,- ,: : _,,._,f ., ..... robbed the complainant PW1 of a . vehicl~, ~"1 .. o7he~ .. 9~?t~nt~ ~h~reof. The prosecution case was that this robbery took ~lace around 20.00 •"•·,,iYJth·; (;• hours in Kitwe and it happened when the complainant was about to drive into his yard when two men accosted him. They, had come in a vehicle which he thought to be a Toyota and they held what .app~ar~d to be a gun. Once the robbers had driven off with his vehicle~· the prosecutio~ case was that the same night, before 23.oo;·the' yehicle was spotted at a house in Twap1a township in 'Ndola. · PW4 claimed that he 'recognised the ., person who was in that vehicle; challenged nim; and, ·when the occupant of the vehicle took to 'his heels , shot at him. · The prosecution·e~1denci was further that, enquiries·at·that house 'led to ·the finding of the ,, > f" I •• ! first appellant in a house at·Lubuto··the next 'morn~ng.' _ As a_resl_!lt of what the first appellant is alleged to have· told the .police, the "..: •·;~ ·°",- : ('II r ,.·,~ h'I ,,,~ ~ .. )r 1•,, · !i• ·n ;t<~· ·· , ··t , .,,. .~ , n:1;-:'.:f· t;~\•·. r· .--v;i : ~ • ·v, • 1~ •" " . l t,,,,. --- 1·1 ,.hl~ Of.1. ?;.· r:i.i '• ., .... ¼•-·<i,\1, \ti't ... , ,•· ·\t·· •· ,r 1: . ,, .... ,., l;("t '1+ r•A,~ • ·,t . Ph,:,.(· .. """"'f~"'•·•l « .. ..-! ; ._ .. :_, iJ).- .. , .. ;'!1'• . r,•': 'f(• t 1-·;,.., •: t" 1•)flt' ~· ;•_ ....... ,. J_ • . " 1•·(: . .~ ·~ • . . _ ·:!· ~ - , , , ,.., •• : { l . • 1 ',,.- .-. • ' • • • t'l' ,, •. t . , , : 'r: tli,:, · · . , ••., •, .. (" ~~-,.- ·~1•. · - · •, ·,• ,. , . \\ • I,,... "t,J, ,_.: •\_· : O"'fj .--,,<.;. f ~• · . ·""°! . .. -.. ·r ·• •, .·· . , ; , , ·· .~, ' '. · ,! : . · 1 • l ,• • " i - • , .. • . • .... .. ., , . . ' . . • ! t . . . . · ' • • . I~ ll I I I u nc ~ ·:· i~~: ;:-.c; ~· ·1 : • : . ; by £t :·i./ \ . 2/ ••• •••••••• second "", , , . ; ; -,. II' ..- ..,. ,. i "' ... ~ f~ I I • : ~ • , . l .~, ~ 1 b I • second 'appe 11 'ant was'' als'o ·: ~'ppr~tienid~d :-',;~The' ': 1 ~arn~d ttztfa1 1j Lidge a.r n'e l l b nt 1 co'nv i cti ng the two . appei 1 ants :·rei'ied among '·othe?"ttitngs: 'on· wliat' Jth'e' ~- ;,f r.r owner of the. house in Twapia~wtio 'dtd' 'not ,:give 'e'vider1ce~a·1 lege'ci1y to'1cl ·the p;uce off leer PW4. what that person had told PW4 was corroborat't'on for P"4: In particular~ the learned trial' Ijudge ;found th'at ·• t :. t · I ' • ' i - : I I . • • • • ,- t ' : • - : : \ . . . : . • • • • • • • I t , , , , • • • " ' '- . - I I ' ' ' ' • • • , , , ' •' ,• .' • f . , . • • • •, ~ .- • • ' • -., • . , I ~ ~ . . . • • '! • "' ; . I , ., • o • • • ..., .. • • •• __ • • 'I. •• ~· • • ' ' : •. ~ , , • , • •• • • ~ ,''. a , , ,. , : ~ .. ,,..; j , ; · , • • t , .t • ,-. • • .. • • I' ,. ,• • ; .- . , •, • • _ -' ' ' .. , i ...... . , . ... . "/ .,.,. · ..: ;. • • 1 • I • , •• , \ ,. I') ,· '• ~ • . ~- ' I 1 • . • .. • •. •"• ,·• • \• ~• j I" •, ... ;._ ~ ,. , ~ J ~ ... 1• 1 ··. , ., . ~ .,, , .. , .... - •- I • ~ • ,• ,.t , ,, • I. . ·. .. : 1· • , ~ • ( ! , / • , • • , ,, , ~·; .. , .•. ., .~ ,.., •' l • • ,,, ~- ,,1,., I • : • ; 1 . •• : I / •' . L. • •, • · ' .. , ~ ~••• : .. • - ; , : ~ ~ ··- ,. • ! . . ,.\ ... , to' ..... ; • ) ~ ; ... . :11 . ,.-, .. •• • ·r ·--~ ~ . . . ... .•;--1•,: .. / I . • · 11 · , 1 : , . l ... ,,,.,. ,.,, : \• . ; .. . . : ~ . . . !, , ~': -r- ·,,..<111\-l- • . '"',.-., On ·b~hal f 'of the: first . appel f ant~-: ~r/'Zul~ 1tias::Jarguec(a number~ot'1 -. ,:~t •, '#, points. The first related to 'the obvious misdirectlonby'the .. learned trial judge when he used ·the hearsay evidence "of 'PW4'·orwhat he -·was ·told by the occupant of the house · in Twapia ·to· support not only ·the ··acceptance of PW4 1 s· evidence but also .. the conviction .- against "tlie'·ft rst appellant. This misdirection has quite ·properly''been· concedecf·even by''the' learned Director of Public Prosecutions who pointed out'·the''further misdirections concerning the finding by the learned : trial · judge· that the ·appellants "· must h~ve been wttti ·'a thtri person1whent conmitting this offence:1'11'one ,;; other ground of appeal ·attacked the absence·of:·an 'identification''parade to support PW1 1s identification of ·the first 'appellant-~-'--!Jt•'was -pointed out by Mr. Zulu, in ' keeping with our own decisions tri•a'riumber·of ' cases, that dock identification 1s--v1rtually· useless. r',·1r- we ·understood:'·· •:.• '•-t•" · Mr. Mwiinga correctly, he has conceded that this'· was _. another· on - the ·part' of the cou~t•' in fa't°it~g:'to\firect :it's11mii,f't 'cf't'hiS' a'spect.d' In the fa~ of all these misdirections, the · conviction·· of ·neither · appellant r r:- i !" ~ • 41~:) can stand unless' in relation to him 'we· can' apply'·the proviso. ''In this regard, we propose to exami'ne th~ ievid~~~~:ra~t·it!relatcir"'to!·eac:h th r ~ ,· · appellant while at the same time cons'tder the rest of· the· ·grounds; of · ·· · appeal. ,. · . ·._ :,.t •1-" "•,,l \.:•~,• \.lie Sclii~ .. ouse 1n ,h.iplu ~,--~;r,'t! ot.,,;!l" ::·· ,The e·videnc'e ~-gaYn's~ 1th~~yirstrap)peli~'r1t''~0nJisteci1'of !,.the th~r·c fc:i; . unsatisfactory dock 'identification which cannot be· r elied upon··unless · it is supported in a ' very material' particular'- by other ·evidence·.· ·' .. · · · such other evidence came from PW4 ■ - , Mr. Zulu has made concerning this witness ," in particular, 'the argument 0'po{1c1e1/ r~qui;e1d 'corroborat'{~n-~:; th~t.,PW4;, an Assistant' S~p1e;:ittJ~dent' iof * for his evidence on a number· of grounds. ro· begin with there was a dispute whether the first appellant was shot at tn··rwapla ·or Lubuto. As Mr. Zulu argued, PW4 was not supported by the occupant of the house in Twapia who was· not cal l ed/. arid he· was not · supported ·by any .... _ .... :-: '.i ' · · ' We are allve'to'the' submission which c.c.11 c-r w~ .. :icn had tl ir.:t .... J; :;~;~:~L.::.--.;_-. . ;, 4: .. •f'-.'-r, ❖• .. ~ · f,,•: r. l,:;;:l 1,-0 '••.' ..... u· .. ,:,,• .. ,, h- ' - · '· _,•·~· ·"'. ·' ' r.r l .r,. I,"~ " ~ ~ . •, :t:~,;i:; ;·j.~\;t~~"LtJ ,".'t.: _:-.i-.: ~ ·· t , . _: _ __ ._ 1 .. -,_::..: , ' "' •· . .•• • ~ · · ·' i "· - , . . . . .,.~ ... ;, .;~- .~ • .- ·, 1•:·••,·;!-~1, , • • ' T. f : : I . , . rJ j ~ • •• l • , , , .. -.,, ; ,.. • 'I •• ~ . - • ' J t ( : ...... : ' ' • ' · 1\"'-:'1'1 " ' ••• - ' •.-.f ··..:-,~-, .. .-,, -•\ : •t ,·, ', ♦; "-~ : ('-·•-,.: . ' •• • • . , , ' ! '~ ' 11·•· ..,.,, ~~ • • ·h· l·~-,- ''; ". J •- ." 1••·n• •/ ; 1 t • ·~ t •• ' I . ':"•••• •• · · 1 r• : 1: .: · ·. • - - ,:· ;· ,.j , ?· -, ' .- f- : , r • 1 ~ i · • ~-- :- • ,.. T"' ,.., , .,. ·t-. : ,. .. , ' , ' ' - ~· ... - j f , •• •• '\ . ' l-.., \ • f I I· t 1 • .... • ,,. .., .. • ·· ·• \'" .... f f • ~ ( •'> -, • ' ., .., ' • ,... • •. I"" _ I •• I, .. · , ' • . . • •• • ' · · • 1 ' • • -' ,,J t • • •- ,,. .. \ • . , ' ' ,,,', • • •, :1 • · • ,•, ;- f , I " · • I • ,. • t t • • • • - : • •. • . I" -:-. -, ." - ' ' ' , • I I I • • • • • ,. • • J \ f ' ' . - - , . • • ! ' ' ' t - 0 ' r ' ' ' t \ , • • • • • I • • • I f ' ' ' ' I • .. .. ···---- wi tn_ess when he cl aim~d . thai . he, _did. not no1:ice_: ~th_~:tl (t_he;,.f 1 rs~'- .appel:lant had· been shot. Mr. Zulu's argument• ~as t~a:t,, if ,:th~_·f.irst.appeUan~-- had been shot in Twapia, the witness PW4 must.h~ve s~n. hJ.m.limping away. Another aspect which Mr. Zulu relied: up~:m~was th.e. al.legation .. ~y, PW4lt that the first appellant led him back to Twapia where1 he -recovered: ,the keys to the motor veh i c 1 e. Mr. Zu 1 u argued that 1 : , 1 f , -that .was the : case. it would not have been . necessary· for·- PW2. a coll~_ague·-.. of ·the complainant PW1, to fetch a spare key with which .to driv.e •th~·motor Nehicle. '.•:~ We 1 have given an~tous consideration· to .the argument~ r.abed, by: Mr.:· Zulu and we find that there would be no.; just1fication ,.for~.the: argument that PW4 oeeded corrobor,atlon in ·this ca$e.· . In · rel.attonrto .. the Jact_- :that. P. W2 had to fetch ,spore keys.,'. ;for,Jostanc~, cwe:-,note that,;; .. acc~rd1ng; to the ev 1 dence ,. , the f 11st appe U ant:. wts . shot;: .on :th,·11 n.lght. 1 of,.,, the; ~bbery but was only appre_h~nded. the n!;llC:t:. d;tYi when •. after,1.~ further_, interview, he led PW4 to where _the motor1vehi~le ·key:::was.'.·1-i 0r1.:tl'le 1other, h.and.-t.:the evidence of PW2 was that he. recetved --lnforni,tion:_ p11;:,the1.very; night of,; the robbery and that. at 23.00 -hours,:, he ,went :and-~ saw; the ·vehicle at _this house in Twapia. : PW2 then:- fetched the sp~rel key .the: next.·,morning and went and drove :the;: ve~icle. :,l;t-.1s; q41te ,apparent; j_therefore~ that by the time PW2 had seenithe vehicle,:-made.: arr~ngements·,: and-Grove it the next day, . the first iappel lant 1had.-:not·,been:1app~bended, -or, at·;the · very: least. ; had not yet ·-le4 PW4:1to,.::go~. aod fet.ch ,thet:ktYS'.·on ·the ,next Ol()rning. CQrroboratiol".1, we would ,hav,:~Jd; no:dJff1~ultY tln' f1n~Uog,;!t; in ~he:1L-:··· evidence of PW5, a police ffllcer,frOfll .. K1tw~. who;:itnt~rvlewed .the;Jirst appellant quite independently .of: PW4 .and. "109,·. by,~an ; QQd .. :~Qincic;teoce.-.,·: w~s led by the first appellant to '. thet,same.:;hQuse -ln-:Twapia where other goods which were in the vehicl~ were recovered. :We consider, therefore, that the evidence against .the fir$t"appellant-, .whicb came.;from ·PW4··and · PW5, can be relied upon. We find. accordingly.; that;_.the,,ur,isatisfactory identification when couple~ wlth ~•the f inding ; inf:his ~possessior.a ,of:;,the motor vehicle on the same ,,night and his leading the witnesses to the recovery of other properties the next day fully justified the conviction of this appellant. In relation to th(# ,~ir,tt .appellant •. therefor.e, .,we . .. , apply the proviso and dismiss his appeal ag~ih.strconvlc~i.9JJ• ,·:· •,; ! .. ~: --• .. In any event. if , .. whJqh w~.;d!:tnQt::ia~e,p,t.r.eW4.~.requJret1i ::· !,,.-:. i ... "-•! Y t ,, .. t r . · · . ~ With regard to the second appellant, we have examined the argull)ents . raised by 'Mr.' ·Mwanawasa, al i . of -~~ic~ -~-~d ;a,.~ioi 'oi. substance ~ ♦• • I "' Ti,.,. u , ,' , ·· :, 1;_:;:.,·,,; 1 rJo,;; ~ ud :t or 198(.f _,,,, ...... -~ ,-f"'"'·--···~, .. , .... ,· - •·1•- •1 ·1 .. , .... .....--- . .. . .. The position of this appellant was that the only evidence against him consisted in the fact that the first appellant implicated him. It is ·axiomatic that what ,one accused says to the police about another accused person is not evidence'against·the latter. We'note also!'that the only evidence against him ·is that ··a :·jack was. founc1\'1n. a c·ar 1which he was employed to drive. There was no cogent evidence connecting the car with the vehicle which was ·used;·at -the robbery. As Mr. Mwanawasa ,pointed out, -the complaina1Jt; :saw_ 111 tQY. Ota tog~ther with what appeared to be-a gun. However, subsequently and obviously as a. result of the witness being assisted to amend his recofl~ct"ion ·of the events he then thought it was the peugeot which the. second ·'ap'peliant was employed to drive and he then also thought that the jack Which_•,was recovered Grom the second appellant 1 s car must havebeel;TJ :the item-which ·he th.ou'ght to be a gun. · The suspicion. of course. is very. strong-that the first.--· . ., ... appellant did not implicate the second :appellant for nothing. but then suspicion cannot fonn -the basis of a conviction .in .a ... court of law._.,_ In - , ~he circumstances; ~q~ ~ri ~y,i r:i~ .r,g ~~;tJH ~~e ,r,a~~~'~ ·t~h i ch we have attempted to give. the appeal of the second appellant _mq~t be allowed. We al low the se~ond appel l,a.~t~_ $.-~~P~~,l ; __ 1.q~,.~h, ~i1~~:c9~1~f,9~~-,9" ~-:-~n~, ': :~t. :)~\.\ t_,.,1 •' :.••.._.:,,.,• . -t_::;~ ,., . . - . . , I--~•~,~ . · .- i ' • , · ' .: .••·"' ·.: 1 1r~ . J.·. ---=. i : . . l -1 •• :~·r .··.: .- aside the sentence. He ls to. be, se~ a~ ;liberty_ unless _oth~r-wise .... , . . ·•· ··. lawfully . detained. With regard ~-~, th~ ,,S~f!ten~e ,T,e~,ct .: ;•oµt _,ag~f ps,t the first appellant,. we. do ~av~ ~o ~~ree ¥it~ ~f:.~,}~t-~ . t~~t~h~ferJtt-·, nothing on the facts of_ this cas~ an~_,i~/~h~1:f~_f-cp~~f~p~~s, O,f,.fni~ particular offence which jJJStif ied the. impo~i tion of a .. se~tence;,greater in a number. of Cijses att~mpted _to than .the mandatory minimum. We hav€ indicate in what circumstances·. we,.,would app_r9ve. an_. Jncre~se a~qve, the mandatory minimum. and nonnally tl)ese have._beeo c~ses .where there ha~ .. been aggravation beyond the mini~utn'·aggr~vat.ion. stipu~ated . in the;:.··:: '· . . section. We allow,the appeal against sentence. 1 _Th~ sentence of twenty . years is set aside and. ln its p}ace. w~ ,lmp9se ,t~~- !Jlar1datory mi~imum. sentence which is fifteen years .. with effect. from, 18t_h ,February,_ 1985. ,,,. : . :·;i_\ ~)t· ... :Is·, :~!rJ\: -:··~~ ~i-~ .. _ 1 ~--ie"; prr.c~:-~-,i;~ .. ~--- ! :~i, -;~y1J:~·;-rc/• ,. :-i ~... ; i ,., " ~ e ~ Q< o i,;,, e. .•. t, ,, ~ ), "' o, ~- I ·t·· ·~.~,.:~ i~,-.•j.:• -·· :If•,, } -~ . ' ": ·_. • • _,, , .- , 1 :·'·., t.··,',;_· ,;..1,~ ,. , c: • · : · : , , .,:~.1·1 ,,.,~--· -,. ~ ·< ~-i;: ~i~ ; 1 .• .. f ',, _l ' , : / .. •. ,: ., • ~~I a~ t,;·:_, 1-· • .,,.~ .. • ~ :'.•·-~ ~j~;,., ·•,; ~. · : , i , , ; \.> .• ' ,I~• . ' ~ ~ ' ' ' --~~ ." .' '. \ j ,•: ;' ,' l : ! ' - ' ·;, ;_ 1 ~ ., •. · , ' ; t • . ".• • '. •• , I . , ~ • ; ; . • • ' 1 -1 ; ! 1· : .1 . . l. I • ' • ':,. • • , : . • : ~ . •• . t, • ·, • / ' • • . ~ ,, ,· :,, { I ' • . I : • • • I -· ·~· I. ~ ·. • . , ,- • ~ , . I · , , , : . , . . . ; ·. l ' ' ' ' • • .' ; . , · ; . . , . . , • • .- ' ' ' • • • • ; \ : i . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • • • ) • • - • • _. . • . ; · . ., .. , , , ,. • I { . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. s. Challa SUPREME COURT JUDGE · •....•..•••..•............. ...... ..• E. L. Sakal a ,. , .. ,•. _, SUPREME COURT" JUDGE'. '' .. , "