Shawa & Another v People (S.C.Z. Judgment 13 of 1981) [1981] ZMSC 11 (27 July 1981)
The appellants should have been charged with murder, not manslaughter, but since they pleaded guilty and agreed to the facts, and the sentence was not excessive or wrong in principle, the appeals were dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1981] ZMSC 11
- Parties
- Appellant: June Shawa; Appellant: Godfrey Chikange Zulu; Respondent: The People
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- S.C.Z. Judgment 13 of 1981
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Murder, Plea of Guilty, Appropriate Charge
- 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
June Shawa
Appellant
Godfrey Chikange Zulu
Appellant
The People
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether appellants were properly charged with manslaughter instead of murder
- 2 Whether appellants were allowed to challenge the prosecution facts
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive or wrong in principle
Ratio Decidendi
The appellants should have been charged with murder, not manslaughter, but since they pleaded guilty and agreed to the facts, and the sentence was not excessive or wrong in principle, the appeals were dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed
Orders
- Sentences of fifteen years imprisonment with hard labour upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JUNE SHAWA AND GODFREY CHIKANGE ZULU v THE PEOPLE (1981) Z. R. 282 (S. C.) SUPREME GARDNER, 28TH (S. C. Z. JUDGMENT NO. 13 OF 1981) AG. D. C. J., JULY, CULLINAN, COURT J. S., AND MUWO, AG. J. S. Flynote Criminal law anal procedure - Offence - Lesser offence charged whilst evidence available warranted more serious offence. Headnote The appellants were convicted on their own plea of guilty of man manslaughter. The facts alleged by the prosecution were that the deceased person was alleged to be a wizard, and two appellants took part in the hanging of the deceased man. In their grounds of appeal, the appellant say that they were not allowed to challenge these facts. It was clear from the record that they agreed that the facts correct. were Held: (i) (ii) Where the evidence warrants a charge, of a more serious offence, that offence is the one for which the accused person must be tried. In this particular case, it is clear that the appellants should have been charged with the murder. of offence In person. F. V. Bruce - Lyle, State Advocate. For the appellants: For the respondent: ____________________________________ Judgment GARDNER, delivered D. C. J.: AG. the judgment of the court. The appellants were convicted on their own plea of guilty of manslaughter. The facts alleged by the prosecution deceased were that the p283 person, Phiri, was alleged to be a wizard, and the two appellants took part in the hanging of the man. deceased In their grounds of appeal the appellants say that they were not allowed to challenge these facts. In fact it is quite clear from the record that they agreed that the facts were correct. This court has made it clear in the past, and we would like to make it clear again, that where the evidence warrants a charge of a more serious offence, that offence is the one for which the accused person must be tried. In this particular case it is quite clear that the appellants should have been charged with the offence of murder. They appeal against sentences of fifteen years imprisonment with hard labour for their actions. This court is quite unable to say that the sentence imposed was excessive neither was it wrong in principle. The appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed ___________________________________