R v Imbuwa (Criminal Review Case 113 of 1941) [1941] ZMHCNR 2 (31 December 1941)
There was no evidence that any person, including the policeman on duty, was annoyed by the noise, and the regulation is not intended to protect policemen on duty from annoyance.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1941] ZMHCNR 2
- Parties
- Prosecutor: Rex; Accused: IM Buwa
- Court
- High Court of Northern Rhodesia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Criminal Review Case 113 of 1941
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- Conviction quashed
- Legal Topics
- Townships Regulations, Noise Disturbance
- 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
Rex
Prosecutor
IM Buwa
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Regulation 4(9) of the Townships Regulations applies to noise made to the annoyance of a policeman on duty
- 2 Whether there was evidence that any person was annoyed by the accused's noise
Ratio Decidendi
There was no evidence that any person, including the policeman on duty, was annoyed by the noise, and the regulation is not intended to protect policemen on duty from annoyance.
Court Disposition
Conviction quashed
Orders
- Sentence set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
[Vol. II R. v. IM BUW A. Criminal R eview Case No. 113 or 1941. Regulation 4 (9) of the Townships Regulations (Cap. 120)—making a noise to the disturbance of a person. In a prosecution under Regulation 4 (9) of the Townships Regu lations the person alleged to have been annoyed should not be a policeman who is on duty. The regulation is aimed at preventing private persons from being annoyed. See also R. v. Mulenga and Lesa p. 66 ante and R. v. Leve Mwaza and Others p. 77 ante. Law , C . J .: I referred this case to the Honourable the Attorney- General to inquire whether he desired to support the conviction. The following is his reply: " With regard to Case No. 40, please inform His Honour the Chief Justice that I would find it difficult to support the conviction in this case. If the accused was making a noise at night to the annoyance o f any person, it should have been possible for the prosecution to produce such a person. I hardly think the regula tion in question is aimed at preventing noise to the annoyance o f policemen who are on duty at night, for dearly a policeman’s duty might take him along highways and by-ways in which parties might be so placed that it would be difficult for them to annoy anybody by the noise they were making. Furthermore, the third person called for the prosecution, Mukongolwa, in his evidence does not give the impression that the noise was such as to annoy him, at all events.” In short, there is no evidence that Constable Libala was annoyed by the noise. He certainly does not say so. In these circumstances the conviction is quashed and the sentence set aside.