James Mugala and Anor v People (Appeal Nos. 4 and 5 of 1989) [1988] ZMSC 88 (9 May 1988)
The evidence against both appellants was overwhelming, including direct identification, possession of stolen property, and leading to recovery of stolen items. There was no basis to interfere with the conviction or the mandatory minimum sentence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1988] ZMSC 88
- Parties
- Respondent: The People; Appellant: First Appellant; Appellant: Second Appellant
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Appeal Nos. 4 and 5 of 1989
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Aggravated Robbery, Sentencing, Identification Evidence, Appeals
- 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
The People
Respondent
First Appellant
Appellant
Second Appellant
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for aggravated robbery
- 2 Whether the appellants were properly identified
- 3 Whether the mandatory minimum sentence could be interfered with
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence against both appellants was overwhelming, including direct identification, possession of stolen property, and leading to recovery of stolen items. There was no basis to interfere with the conviction or the mandatory minimum sentence.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld.
Orders
- Appeals against conviction are dismissed.
- Mandatory minimum sentences affirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN TI-IE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA Appeal Nos. 4 and 5 of 1989 · • ·1 .-: ·=. \ ·h'4Dtl ~; u:d. '.~::~ J ~·~ t~1e rot }"l<1.r1J,., (Criminal Jurisdiction) ') :n·,, ;tM/;;:;_ THE ),'EoPLE•,,sjjtJona l ,1iGunds of Respondent1>:J -,. n1) sufficient 1.d.c'!ene.t1 1n tr1.;,s ,,·•·'lr1·~;-.r•.il:~ U-nrt iJlf.,tf: . ,_ . - , ,;,.-:;_, •': '( CORAM: Ngu_l~fei A,;r,d·/1-,Tr~kM,!1 tJji-ff,~lM•n~8.;?ty.' Thu: f j r·c-t app,:,! ic,/l't , -,,--. ' ' j ·' • •• ,1, ,·, - 1• ,.,.-: ... :,·. ,,. ···'" -,,, .•• • •·•.1~, , .• '"'''"•~---•,·· -:,·!-9th·,--May< 1989·· ,, .. ,.--,·pr!·. '_' .••• "·'· ',-1 •~;-~-· < • .,, .. / ' ) 0- F. N.· Mwiinga,, Director.;of Public,Prosecutions·,; for.:ithe:respondent1J. J,1nc,~. I :•ly (r!(r~1.1fvln° 11:~1 ~~ th~ n~r~-,:1 whn did , Ngulube, D. C. J.·, delivered ,the Jjudgment of•1the1cqurt·;:,c i'.0n' -JnUt,n~ c'::r, · · !:;.j>:.i -,;-,.;,_: ~:··,:i~ tJ o,;Jr ('c:fnsid$rl:!d· vif~vi, ·th() cci,g~ ago-inst tl·1q1~~! tr10 , ,, )" I The appell ants,.were, sentenc~d tol·:the) manda:tpryl fif.teen years lfL~d imprisonment ,with .-hard:,labourc ini,cons,equence pfotheirvconvictionaon~a charge, ,of, aggravated: robbery .,;,The1,particulars,werJts that,· they;';_~ !Jed together· with. a ,thi rd,1person Jwho,-escapedr:fromt,custody~•c6nc:13thnFebrLiary, 1985, at Kafue stile a large quantityyofrproperty,0:from a1grocery shop ,t,-,. belonging to the. complainant.· i. The f,acts,of-·theic_ase;. accordingcto 1":t.. prosecution. evidence, ,.werecthat ,,, ·on;,the, nighttinGquestion ;<:the ,workers .n in ,the shop weretabout,,toeclose:\it,wheni.three persons came,whotpretended that ,they wanted to ,buy isomething ~,c As csoon cas 1·,they were tlet in ;"cthey he IQ. up_ the workers ,•and :,beat·s:som~. io'fi them. u 1The n:ai ders' were tcarryi ng-h: n , W~c!t ,appearep,'. Jo. ~~t,:l,g_~~·cP,Ut 1~r}9..~J i1~.is~,ctl,\~~--,R.9,V~,,ep\/1V.t~JA~~tt,qn~-:j' 1 df,s.cpx~_rep iw~s ),u~t.,~. P,,i}rF,t _of i~~~mc,io,,e;t i (~f~.'r£ttry.~,fa.!fb~r,::t,he(Osq9P, • , tqe, pr,o.sElc~Hpn · ,ey,'1,9:El_nc~,r;,;,~.s- t,~<),t1'. P~t,,,9f t~PJ!; ~J~tt~s 11?J~K~~, i~l?i a, ;~ll1 fe and.,pUilsiJ¢_d ;tre, f,1 r,,~t ~P,PiH,1~~t .-l?. P9,i,~Ja,~bt91 q½!!1, 9~,(in~ .u~~~r .~rll!,i; d.!:1~, eviQEl~.~e W;J.,S ;f,!!~tr~~ ,t,hay:,;;l"nr,iq )~t~)ute~,'cn\h,e ttiJs.~ic~P.r-ie~~~n,\ :"ts~f,; ~ apprehended and handed over. to. ;the ,police, where t~e,.v.ictims, 1readily, 'o_i·,.:._.nJ.;_~_:_,:.·-4~ identified him as one ,of _.the persons -who had. come ,to. ,the,,.shop, and .. as. the one who was stabbed. The prosecution evidence against the second i:;·. J 1.lr;.-;,!.. fl~tiJ,: .. 1-,.•Hll, l-<~,.': ,_,,.}'1',sj.'; __ ;,Jl,'.i·; •-·,·.,.-\: l'.:;',' .~• •/,;:",c"I\.;- .•,· .. ·-.•: ,: .·;1·1 :.·: 1~11'..:\, 1_;;:••. ,:_:)\~ :,,.;._/ :•, .:,,_ I _l ,: • : · · · , ' ' , - ' '. I <12 e ' • ~,~.- r'>,_ ;lr,(_1 I r<~o1 it: it•,:,:.i I ,-J b-2 U ..! ,;:u:::1 ft:" t.hi s c:..~itt. to {1i ve ri .h'i~}tar· sentenct: .• appellant 'was ''that;' 'as a "resul t"of L<fnformati on Tobtained• 0by;:the 1pblice ;, . he ~as . apprehended' the next' day 1'and he 'led '~thehpo H ce '-to 1',the ;_ recovery~ 1 U of tlie: various''} teins stoleniin the"robbery:,• ,;;Js i'; ,, < i': m:.1ndJtory :: ~··tT'C('rh·· :., . 1· The appellants''filed11dentical';grot'.inds'cof0appeal:finlwhich they:'mad joint allegations to the effect that_ the case against them had not been_ proved. They claimed that·the learned trial judge had acted on presumptions and uncorroborated evidence and that they were simpl}' victims of circumstances. In the_ir additional grounds of appeal, the first appellant contends that there was no sufficient violence in this case to merit a conviction for aggrav'ated robbery,••The-first-appellant-• • . also complains that he was not properly identifi,~9,.frrTh~.,~~poryg'iHCE: appeLlant argued his appeal in a ra_mbling fashion, the main thrust of Which was that, when PW5, an investigating police officer, gave, evidence against him, he was mistakenly identifying him as the person who did the various things when in fact the witness must have intended to refer to the escaped co-accused, He advanced a number''of:.arguments in· support of this contention and we have given all·those·contentions·due consideration. appellants was truly overwhelming. The first appellant was identifi_ed by the complainants and. the stabbing in the process.'vfrtually marked him for identification. He was apprehended:inoinents'. J~ter, ~.nd· he" had"'. •. ' one of the complainants' wristwatch on him when '.ttie'.:·police'sear.ched him. convi~tion. The second appellant gave a lengthy but untrue account. The evidence, which was accepted by the court below.and against which we find no reason to disagreewith, was that he led.the police to a pond where he personally fished out the stolen cashbox. What is ~ore,_he led the police to a house.belonging to a girlfriend of his where stolen groceries_~11i-l!!~~vered. The police also found a photograph of him and the girl in that house. The allegation that PW5 intended .to refer to the third suspect cannot stand when the witness identified this' appellant in court. There Is no basis, on the record, forus tocome to the conclusion that PW5 was lying against the second appellant._ The_ appeals against conviction are dismissed.· The first ,appellant has also argued that he is entitled to leniency and'that,the five years _On such a case, there is no .way in which. we can interfere with the In our considered view, the case against these two· ,t:ti."1·•~(:1;.: tt~•!r•l ,1J:nr~r:· .. ,, .~ ► " ., ,\ "' -. " ,. " <> " ,. 'f ~ ·• ~ n " 1• ,,. ., • . ,; ! ' . I< -, ~ • ' '~ ' ' ~ . "- ~ . . . " . . . •,' . •,..•. he has been,in .. custody should be sufficient. The second appellant has . ·.-.•. _,, . . . . , . drawn the ·attention of the court to the fact that he is now in bad health. We wish to point out only that where·the law· has fixed-a mandatory i1 1~-."~""•'•·:~.·i sentence it would be illegal for this court to give_ a lesser sentence. There can be no appeal.whatsoever against the mandator. Y,.!"_inimu11j;s~11:tence • • · -~.,:, :: · , t:-.\f /.{;:;.'.-:d, liw~:. ·_: .:-_-;i f\~'.{·r;;n,1 ;~;\~_-·_:cL .. :1 ...... ,.., · ;~:/-.(; ·: , .• . . · . · --· ~ ~::1 ~-M:1r·5: ~N~;J i ~;,; ......... · ... -· DEPUTY ·cHIEF JUSTICE p ;··:1 ~\~;~ l(~ f .:d•,-;; • .?·f>;r ,'~';ff;·: ·-t(:·~~fi)ttde:,t ./ J I 1-