Hussein Salim Juma v The People (SCZ APPEAL NO. 136/1985) [1991] ZMSC 61 (5 March 1991)
The conviction was quashed because the only evidence against the appellant was his knowledge of the location of stolen property, which was not sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated robbery.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1991] ZMSC 61
- Parties
- Appellant: Hussein Salim Juma; Respondent: The People
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- SCZ APPEAL NO. 136/1985
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside
- Legal Topics
- Aggravated Robbery, 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
Hussein Salim Juma
Appellant
The People
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for aggravated robbery was supported by adequate evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was quashed because the only evidence against the appellant was his knowledge of the location of stolen property, which was not sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated robbery.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside
Orders
- conviction quashed
- sentence set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA SCZ APPEAL NO. 136/1985 HOLDEN AT NDOLA -------- ----------- --------- , (Criminal Jurisdiction) . ■ . ' . ’ , < ■ HUSSEIN SALIM JUMA Appellant ; THE PEOPLE Respondent ’ . CORAM: Gardner, AJ. S.,Sakala & Chaila JJ. S. 5th March 1991 For the Appellant: Mr. S, K, Munthali, Senior Legal Counsel For the People: Mr. A. B. Munthali, State Advocate - JUD GHENT .. • ■ • ' • ■■ ‘ ■ ■ ;' --------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- .--------------------- -------------——------------------ ---------------------------------------- Gardner, AJ. S.» delivered the judgment of the court. . .v. ? • • ■ . . • •.. ’ Mr. Munthali, Senior Legal Counsel for the appellant Indicated to this court that he did not support the conviction of the appellant. The appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery. The particulars of the charge were that he together with others on the 6th of December, 1979 at Ndola stole from Eugene Goss a motor vehicle, and a quantity of. personal property. The prosecution evidence was that the complainant had the property referred to in the charge stolen from him at the Ndola Golf Club. There was further evidence that, when the appellant was questioned by the Police, he took them to the house where he used to stay In which >’■ house was found a suit of clothes which had.been stolen from the comp lainant. One of the prosecution witnesses gave evidence that the,’suit belonged to one of the co-accused. The learned.trial judge convicted the appellant because he knew where the suit was to be found. ’This was not adequate evidence upon which to convict the appellant. • c ■' ? ■ & ’ ■ ' ■ - ■ < •• ■ ■ ■- -■ ■ • . ■ ■ ■ ■ £ /J2..,. ' The conviction cannot be supported for the reasons which we have given. This appeal will be allowed. The conviction is quashed, the sentence is set aside J $ j/ ?■ !’• !■ 7. * B. T. GARDNER AG. SUPREME COURT JUDGE E. L. SAKALA SUPREME COURT JUDGE M.^S^CHATLA SUPREME COURT JUDGE J ■ - // r ■ 4 % I