Kapapula Makesa v the People (Appeal No. 83 of 1982; SCZ Judgment No. 17 of 1982) [1980] ZMSC 36 (8 June 1980)
The court held that the charge must be properly framed using the prescribed wording to ensure the accused understands the case against him, but in this case, the conviction was upheld as the appellant failed to account for possession of suspected stolen property.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1980] ZMSC 36
- Parties
- Appellant: Kapapula Makesa; Respondent: The People
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Appeal No. 83 of 1982 ; SCZ Judgment No. 17 of 1982
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Drafting of Charges, Proper Wording in Charges, Section 319 Penal Code
- 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
Kapapula Makesa
Appellant
The People
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the charge was properly framed in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code
- 2 Whether the appellant's conviction was valid given the wording of the charge
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the charge must be properly framed using the prescribed wording to ensure the accused understands the case against him, but in this case, the conviction was upheld as the appellant failed to account for possession of suspected stolen property.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
KAPAPULA MAKESA v THE PEOPLE (1982) ZR 48 (SC) SUPREME COURT 35 NGULUBE AGCJ, MUWO AGDCJ AND BWEUPE ADJS 8TH JUNE 1982 (SCZ Judgment No. 17 of 1982) Appeal No. 83 of 1982 40 Flynote Criminal law and procedure - Charge - Drafting of - Need to use proper wording in charge - s. 319 of the Penal Code construed. Headnote The appellant was convicted in the Subordinate Court of the Third class at Mansa of being possession of property reasonably suspected to 1982 ZR p49 MUWO AG DCJ have been stolen. The conviction was based on his failure to give a reasonable account as to how he came to be in possession of the said suspected stolen property. He was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment and appealed against both conviction and sentence. Held: 5 (i) A charge must be properly framed in accordance with the format in the first schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code so that the accused person may know in advance what the prosecution has set out to prove against him. L P Mwanawasa, Mwanawasa, for the appellant. 10 F Mwiinga, Senior State Advocate, for the respondent. Judgment Muwo Ag DCJ: delivered the judgment of the court. After dealing with matters not relevant to this case the learned trial judge continued. In the course of Mr Mwiinga's submission this court has drawn it's 15 attention to the format contained in the first schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code where precise and comprehensive words are used guiding prosecutors as to how the charge should be properly framed. This is in fact our view also that if these words were adopted in future by prosecutors an accused person would know in advance what the prosecution has set 20 out to prove against him. For ease of reference the wording for a charge under s. 319 of the Penal Code should be as set out in the first schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap. 160. The wording is: "Failing to account for possession of property suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained." 25 If these words were employed the necessity for an accused to claim he did not understand the charge properly would be avoided. Appeal dismissed 1982 ZR p49