Precious Longwe v The People [2018] ZMCA 311 (22 August 2018)

The case at hand involves Precious Longwe who happens to be the appellant and The People
who happen to be the respondents. The case was firstly brought before High court as the
appellant was charged with murder contrary to section 200 the penal code1 which provides that
causing the life another through malice aforethought makes the person guilty of murder.

The court in this case held that the appellant was guilty of committing the offence of murder,
without extenuating circumstances and imposed the death penalty. The case is now on appeal in
the Court of Appeal

In August 2018 the case was then brought to the, the particulars of the offence alleged that on
26th May 2016, the appellant murdered Akakanda Lubinda Litebele, who was her husband. She
denied the charge and the matter proceeded to trial. The victim was shoot three times and one of
the bullet wounds was found at his back side.

Appellant claimed she had to defend herself after her husband shot her. She claimed he had a
background of violence and that she had been provoked by him. Court dismisses appeal as there
was no evidence of how much alcohol she had taken or that she became incapacitated as a result
of the drinking. Trial judge noted that there was evidence that the appellant was able to respond
to her husband's SMSs and that on the very day her husband was shoot she had communicated
with her mother, call the maid and check on the baby. The court concludes that the defense of
intoxication was not available and the appeal should be dismissed.

The trial judge found that it was not in dispute that the appellant shot her husband in the early
hours of 25th May 2016 and that he died as a result of gunshot injuries that he suffered. She
considered whether the appellant was provoked by any of the SMS's her husband sent her or the
phone call he made to her father, she found that there was nothing wrongful with the call and that
no reasonable person would be unsettled by the possibility of being exposed through such a call.
Consequently, she found that the defense of provocation was not available to her.

1
Chapter 87 of the laws of Zambia
The trial judge also ruled out the possibility that the appellant acted in self-defense when she shot
her husband. She noted that there was no evidence of any disturbance in the room were the body
was found and this ruled out the possibility that there was a threat of being shot, which was
followed by a struggle that resulted in the shooting. She accepted the pathologist's evidence that
the appellant's husband was shot when he was in motion.
Steven Bwalya v The People (Appeal No.103/2017)[2017] ZMCA 18 (27 September 2017)

The case involves two parties which are the appellant Steven Bwalya and the respondent The
People. The appellant Steven Bwalya appealed against his conviction and sentence. He was
charged with two counts of aggravated robbery and one of murderer. The charge was contrary to
two different sections of the country's penal code. The court found him guilty of the robbery
charge and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The accusations levied against him for the first instance for 1st September 2014 in Mufulira
district of the Copperbelt province of the republic of Zambia. Jointly and when working together
with other individuals, he stole from David Mutondo the property of Andrew Msiska various
grocery products totally valued at K1,060.00 and immediately before or directly after such
robbery, he attempted to use real violence against David Mutondo in order to acquire or
discourage or resolve opposition to being stolen or retained.

The trial court misdirected itself both in law and in fact, said the court in the case of the murder
of David Mutondo. The court also relied on weak circumstantial evidence to convict the
appellant for murderer, the court said. The appeal argued that the trial court convicted the
appellant of aggravated robbery when there was no evidence linking him to that offence. The
trial court was asked to answer questions on the case.

The submissions made where that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellant was armed with an offensive weapon. Further submitted that, there was no proof that
the accused was found with the stolen items, or that he put the groceries in the sack, and that at
the time the appellant arrived at the shops, the security guard was alive. In Mwape v the people 2
it was held that because there was no evidence to suggest that, there as an agreement to use
violence if necessary, or if there was that that the appellant was party to such agreement.

In this case, the court referred to the decisions made in the case of David Zulu v the people.
Clearly the judge did rule out any other alternatives. It is not unrealistic to say that the security

2
2012
guard was killed to prevent him from raising alarm, as the felony of aggravated robbery was
committed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

CASES

David Zulu v The People

Precious Longwe v The People [2018] ZMCA 311

Steven Bwalya v The People (Appeal No.103/2017)

STATUTES

Penal Code Act, Chapter 87 of the laws of Zambia.