R v Mulenga and Lesa (Criminal Review Case 245 of 1939) [1939] ZMHCNR 11 (31 December 1939)
The charge was bad for want of certainty as it failed to specify the person annoyed, making it impossible for the accused to properly plead to the charge.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1939] ZMHCNR 11
- Parties
- Accused: Mulenga; Accused: Lesa; Prosecution: Republic
- Court
- High Court of Northern Rhodesia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Criminal Review Case 245 of 1939
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- convictions quashed
- Legal Topics
- Certainty of Charge, Disorderly Conduct, Municipal by Laws
- 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
Mulenga
Accused
Lesa
Accused
Republic
Prosecution
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a charge for disorderly behaviour under municipal by-laws must specify the person annoyed
- 2 Whether the charge was sufficiently certain to allow the accused to plead
Ratio Decidendi
The charge was bad for want of certainty as it failed to specify the person annoyed, making it impossible for the accused to properly plead to the charge.
Court Disposition
convictions quashed
Orders
- Both convictions are quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
66 Vol. I l] R v. MULENGA AND LESA. Crim inal R eview Case No. 245 of 1939. Behave in a disorderly manner to the annoyance o f a person—person must be specified— charge must be certain. In cases under Municipal By-laws or Townships Regulations where a person is charged with disorderly behaviour, the person annoyed must be specified otherwise the charge is bad for want o f certainty. See also B. v. Mwanza p. 77 post, and R . v. Imbuwa p. 113 post. T h om son , A . J .: The two accused in this case were charged that on 19th July in the Ndola Location they did “ behave in a noisy manner to the annoyance o f any person ” in contravention o f B y-law N o. 212 (38)1 o f the Ndola Municipal By-laws. T o the charge they both pleaded guilty and both were convicted, small fines being im posed. I have no option but to hold that the charge was bad for want o f certainty and was one that no person could have pleaded to or should have been called upon to plead to. In the case o f alleged offences against this by-law (and the corresponding regulation in townships) it is necessary to allege and prove annoyance or disturbance as the case m ay be to a specified person and in this case that has not been done. The Magistrate will appreciate m y meaning when I observe that what was done was very much on a par with charging someone that he did “ steal something ” at a certain time and place in contravention o f section 243 o f the Penal Code. The proceedings were bad from the beginning and both convictions must be quashed. 1 The relevant By-law is now 212 (37).—E d it o r.