Kababa v People (Appeal 8 of 1991) [1991] ZMSC 51 (11 June 1991)
No order of forfeiture was made against the appellant's firearm, and forfeiture proceedings must be conducted with the appellant being heard.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1991] ZMSC 51
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Kawa; Respondent: The People
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Appeal 8 of 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal
- Outcome
- case remitted for hearing
- Legal Topics
- Forfeiture of Property, Right to Be Heard, Unlawful Possession
- 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
Peter Kawa
Appellant
The People
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order of forfeiture of the appellant's firearm was made
- 2 Whether the appellant was given an opportunity to be heard before forfeiture
Ratio Decidendi
No order of forfeiture was made against the appellant's firearm, and forfeiture proceedings must be conducted with the appellant being heard.
Court Disposition
case remitted for hearing
Orders
- The case is remitted to the Subordinate Court for forfeiture proceedings to be conducted with the appellant being heard.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA Appeal no. 8 of 1991 HOLDEN AT HDOLA (Civil jurisdiction) PETER KAWA Appellant -v- THE PEOPLE Respondent CORAH: Ngulube, D. C. J., Sakaia and Lawrence, JJ. S. On 11th June, 1991 For the appellant: Hr. Chitabo. of Chitabo ChInga & Associates For the Respondent: R. O. Okafor* Assistant Principal State Advocate JUDGMENT Ngulube, D. C. J. delivered the judgment of the court This is an appeal against an alleged order of forfeiture of a .firearm and it is brought by the owner of such firearm. A perusal of the record shows that no such order' was in fact ever made and this appeal is strictly speaking quite unnecessary. The facts of the matter were that one Simeon Ndala pleaded; quilty to unlawful possession of a Government trophy and unlawful possession of a firearm. -The firearm belonged to the appellant, Peter ^ababa, and the facts recited indicated that the accused had taken the firearm in the absence of the owner. When the prosecutor applied for d forfeiture order the court at the trial declined to order forfeiture of the gun without hearing the appellant. The sentence imposed against Ndala was confirmed by the High Court. The grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant allege that the High Court confinnetjl the forfeiture order of his gun which order was allegedly originally made on 7th October, 1985, at Kabompo. No such order was in fact m^de and it is clear that ihe forfeiture proceedings have yet to be conducted at which the appellant, Mr. Kababa, must be heard. Purely for the Avoidance of any doubt, therefore, we order that this case be remitted to/the Surbodinate Court for the .forfeiture proceedings to take ^idce., g. M. S. W. Ngulube DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE E. L. Sakala SUPREME COURT JUDGE ^. R. Lawrence SUPREME COURT JUDGE