R v Shem Nyalongo (Criminal Review Case 52 of 1942) [1942] ZMHCNR 2 (31 December 1942)
Separate sentences should be passed for each count when there are multiple counts, but only one sentence is necessary if housebreaking and theft are charged in a single count. The accused suffered no injustice due to the form of the charge.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1942] ZMHCNR 2
- Parties
- Prosecution: Republic; Accused: Shem Nyalongo
- Court
- High Court of Northern Rhodesia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Criminal Review Case 52 of 1942
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- No injustice found; no interference with sentence.
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Housebreaking, Theft, Drafting of Charges
- 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
Republic
Prosecution
Shem Nyalongo
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether separate sentences should be passed for each count when an accused is found guilty on more than one count
- 2 Whether housebreaking and theft from the same building can be charged in one count
Ratio Decidendi
Separate sentences should be passed for each count when there are multiple counts, but only one sentence is necessary if housebreaking and theft are charged in a single count. The accused suffered no injustice due to the form of the charge.
Court Disposition
No injustice found; no interference with sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
136 Vol. II] R . v . SH E M N Y A L O N G O . Crim in al R eview Case N o. 52 o f 1942. Sentences— separate sentence should be passed in respect o f each count— charge o f housebreaking and theft can be put into one count. W here an accused is found guilty on more than one count a separate sentence should be passed in respect o f each count. The sentences may be made concurrent in proper cases. Where a person is accused o f housebreaking and theft from the building only one count is necessary to cover both offences and in that case only one sentence would be necessary. See also R. v. Kantolombo White and R . v . Popeye Kalingula 4 N . R . L . R . 217. L aw , C . J .: A plea o f guilty was recorded to the charge and one sentence was passed. The charge, however, was split up into tw o counts. Where this is done separate sentences should be passed in respect o f each count though, in proper circumstances, such sentences m ay be made concurrent. In the present case one count w ould have sufficed to cover sections 271 (1) and 243 Penal Code. B ut the accused has not suffered any injustice by reason o f the form in which the charge was presented.