Simaka v The People (SCZ Appeal No. 28 of 1993) [1993] ZMSC 141 (2 March 1993)
The sentence of 10 years imprisonment for manslaughter was neither excessive nor wrong in principle, and did not cause a sense of shock to the court.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1993] ZMSC 141
- Parties
- Appellant: Webby Sikaka; Respondent: The People
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- SCZ Appeal No. 28 of 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Sentencing, Mitigation
- 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
Webby Sikaka
Appellant
The People
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 10 years imprisonment for manslaughter was excessive or wrong in principle
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence of 10 years imprisonment for manslaughter was neither excessive nor wrong in principle, and did not cause a sense of shock to the court.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA SCZ Appeal tto. 28 of 1993 HOLDEN AT MDOLA WEBBY SIKAKA Appellant vs THE PEOPLE Respondent CORAM: Sakala, Chaila and Chlrwa JJJ. S. 2nd March, 1993. For the appellant in person Mr. S. A. G. Twumasi, Assistant Senior State Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Chaila, J. S. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was charged with an offence of manslaughter contrary to section 199 of the Penal Code. The particulars were that he on the 28th May 1992 at Mbala in the Mbala District of the Northern Province of the Republic of Zambia, did unlawfully cause the death of one Speaker Kalalanda. The appellant pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to 10 years Imprisonment with hard labour. He appeals against this sentence. In his grounds of appeal, he has argued that he feels very sorry for the offence that he committed and has asked the court to bear with him for the error he made. He has urged this court to exercise maximum leniency on the ground that, according to him he had no intention what-so-ever to do what he did. The learned trial judge took into account the facts placed before him in mitigation. /2.... We have - J2 - We have considered the facts in the matter and we feel that 10 years imprisonment for this offence does not come to us with a sense of shock* neither is it wrong In principle. The appeal is therefore dismissed. E. L. Sakala SUPREME COURT JUDGE M. S. Challa SUPREME COURT JUDGE O. K. Chirwa SUPREME COURT JUDGE