R v Sampa and Kasakanshya (Criminal Review Case 1 of 1937) [1937] ZMHCNR 8 (31 December 1937)
Conviction cannot be sustained without proof that the duty was imposed by a Provincial Commissioner or District Officer.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1937] ZMHCNR 8
- Parties
- Prosecutor: Rex; Accused: Sampa; Accused: Kasakanshya
- Court
- High Court of Northern Rhodesia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Criminal Review Case 1 of 1937
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- Convictions quashed
- Legal Topics
- Neglect of Duty, District Messengers Ordinance, Burden of Proof
- 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
Sampa
Accused
Kasakanshya
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether it is necessary to prove that the duty neglected was imposed by a Provincial Commissioner or District Officer under section 7(6) of the District Messengers Ordinance
Ratio Decidendi
Conviction cannot be sustained without proof that the duty was imposed by a Provincial Commissioner or District Officer.
Court Disposition
Convictions quashed
Orders
- Fines must be returned
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
[Vol. I R. v. SAMPA AND KASAKANSHYA. A Cr im in a l R e v ie w Case of 1937. District Messengers Ordinance (Cap. 43) section 7 (6)— charge of neglect to perform duty—necessity for proving that the duty was imposed by a Provincial Commissioner or a District Officer. In order to sustain a conviction under section 7 (6) of the District Messengers Ordinance it is necessary to prove that the duty which the accused messenger is charged with neglecting to perform was imposed by a Provincial Commissioner or a District Officer. The District Messengers Ordinance is now Cap. 70 o f the Law's. See also R. v. Nawa p.157 post. Francis, J . : In this case there is no proof that the duty for the failure of which the accused were charged and convicted was a duty imposed by a Provincial Commissioner or District Officer. The matter has been referred to the Attorney-General who is unable to sustain the conviction. The convictions are hereby quashed and the fines must be returned.