Kalebwe v Director of Public Prosecutions [1969] ZMCA 1 (18 March 1969)
The prosecution must prove all the ingredients of the offence and cannot rely on words spoken by the accused at the time of plea; therefore, the conviction cannot stand.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1969] ZMCA 1
- Parties
- Appellant: Kalebwe; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Theft by Agent, Plea Procedure, Proof of Prosecution's Case
- 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
Kalebwe
Appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecution can rely on words spoken by the accused at the time of plea to prove its case
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution must prove all the ingredients of the offence and cannot rely on words spoken by the accused at the time of plea; therefore, the conviction cannot stand.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Conviction quashed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
KALEBWE v THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (1969) ZR 39 (CA) COURT OF APPEAL SKINNER CJ, DOYLE JA, EVANS J 18th MARCH 1969 Flynote and Headnote [1] Criminal procedure - Prosecution's case - Pleading by accused. 5 In proving its case, the prosecution cannot rely on words spoken by the accused when called upon to plead. [2] Criminal procedure - Pleading by accused - Not part of prosecution's case. See [1] above. 10 Case cited: (1) R v Muchuma (1946) 4 NRLR 64. Judgment Skinner CJ: delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was convicted by a subordinate court at Kalulushi of the offence of theft by agent contrary to section 251B of the Penal Code. 15 Mr Chigaga for the People has told us that unless he can rely on the words spoken by the appellant at the time of the plea in the court below he is unable to support the conviction. The case of R v Muchuma [1] which has been referred to in the course of the appeal by my brother Evans is authority for the proposition 20 of law that the prosecution cannot rely upon words spoken by an accused when called upon to plead. Even without the authority contained in that case, we would hold that there is a duty to prove all the ingredients of the offence and that the prosecution cannot rely upon words spoken by the accused at the time when he is called upon to plead. Consequently 25 we do not think that the conviction should stand, and we allow the appeal. Appeal allowed 1969 ZR p39