Institute of National

Public

Administration

2ND YEAR 2ND SEMESTER. ASSIGNMENT 2.

PROGRAM OF STUDY: BACHELOR OF LAWS

COURSE: CIVIL & CRIMINAL PROCEDIRE LAW.

COURSE CODE: LLB2070.

LECTURER: MR. MUYUNDA.

STUDENT: EVARISTO PHIRI.

STUDENT NUMBER: 29005823.

DUE DATE: 20/11/2023.

1
The objective of this writing is to discuss the significance of the case of Sammy Kambilima Ngati,
Mumba Chishimba Edward and Davy Musonda Chanda V. the people. (2003) Z.R.100. But it is
important to first consider the facts of the matter, particularly, the decision of Trial Court, the
grounds for appeal and the decision of the Court of Appeal.

Facts of the case are that all the appellants were convicted of two counts of murder contrary to
Section 200 of the Penal Code, Cap 87 of the laws of Zambia. And one count of aggravated robbery
contrary to Section 294 (2) of the Penal Code, Cap 87 of the laws of Zambia. 1 The first two
Appellants were Congolese and the third Appellant was a Zambian. All the offences were
committed in Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The trial court convicted all the appellants based on the evidence of a single identifying witness.
The trial Judge considered the testimony of the single witness and eliminated the possibility of
mistaken identity.

The decision of the Appellants to appeal was based on two grounds. First, that the 1st and 2nd
Appellants were Congolese and not Zambians, as such, they were not to be tried in Zambia.
Second, that the Appellants were convicted based on the evidence of a single identifying witness
without consideration of corroborating witnesses.

The Court of Appeal ruled that: “crime has ceased to be largely local in origin an effect. Crime is
now established on an international scale and common law must face this reality; the Zambian
courts has jurisdiction to try the appellants based on the provisions of Section 6 (1) of the penal
code, cap 87 of the laws of Zambia and that it is settled law that a court is competent to convict in
a single identifying witness provided the possibility of mistaken identity is eliminated.”2 The
decision of the Trial Court was upheld. Appeal dismissed.

The case of Sammy is significant because of two reasons. First, it concerned with the jurisdiction
of the Zambian courts to determine matters. Jurisdiction is the authority of the court to adjudicate
or determine dispute between parties and the territory covered by it legal authority. The case of
Sammy questions the jurisdiction of Zambian courts to try the Appellants who committed offences
outside Zambia, and considering that the first and second Appellants were not Zambians, but

1
The penal code, cap 87.
2
Sammy Kambilima Ngati, Mumba Chishimba Edward and Davy Musonda Chanda V. the people. (2003) Z.R.100

2
Congolese. The decision of the Court of appeal to dismiss the appeal was supported by the three
reasons. The first reason is that crime has ceased to be largely local in origin and effect. Crime is
now established on an international scale and common law has to face this reality. This principle
of law was applied in the case of Somchai Liangsiriprasert v. Government of United States of
America (1) at page 251. Lord Griffiths held that: “unfortunately in this century crime has ceased
to be largely local in origin and effect. Crime is now established on an international scale and
common law must face this reality.”3 This precedent proves the jurisdiction of the Zambian courts
to determine matters of crime committed outside the country, be it by Zambians or Non-Zambians.

Generally speaking, courts in Zambia has no jurisdiction over matters committed in other
countries. But concerning criminal matters committed wholly or partly by Zambian citizens
anywhere in the world, the Zambian courts have authority to adjudicate. For example, Section 116
(1) of the Penal Code, provides that contempt of court is a criminal offence. In line with this
provision, in George Lipimile and another v. mpulungu harbor management ltd. Appeal 39.
(2006). The appellants appealed against the decision of the High Court which ruled that it had
extra territorial jurisdiction to determine an act of contempt of court which Zambian citizens had
committed in France. The Supreme Court held that Zambian courts have jurisdiction over all
criminal cases committed by Zambian citizens anywhere in the world. The court further stated that
order 52 of the High court Act does not limit both the High Court and Supreme Court in its power
to determine and punish cases of contempt of court.4 The appeal was dismissed. In the similar case
of Zulu V. The People (1990-1992) Z.R.62. (S.C). The court ruled that section 116 (1) of the penal
code gives the court limited jurisdiction because it requires the party to apply for case committed
outside Zambia to be determined in Zambia. But order 52 of the High Court Act provides unlimited
jurisdiction for the Court.5 Hence, with or without the application of a party, the court can still
determine the case committed by Zambian citizens anywhere in the world. “It is clear that the
learned trial judge derived his power from order 52 of the High Court Act which empowers the
High Court and Supreme Court to punish contempt of court. The power of the court under order

3
Somchai Liangsiriprasert v. Government of United States of America (1) at page 251 .
4
George Lipimile and another v. mpulungu harbor management ltd. Appeal 39. (2006).
5
High Court Act, Cap 27 of the laws of Zambia.

3
52 are wider than those under Section 116 (1) of the Penal Code in the sense that there is no
limitation on the court to dispose of contempt of court on the same day that it arises”6

The second reason in support of the court’s decision to dismiss an appeal is based on the provisions
of Section 6 (1) of the Penal Code, Cap 87. And it states that, “subject to section ‘3’ a Zambian
citizen who does any act outside Zambia, which if wholly done within Zambia, would be an
offence against this code, may be tried and punished under this code in the same manner as if such
act had been wholly done within Zambia.”7 This provision of the law clearly shows that Zambian
courts has jurisdiction to try Zambian citizens over matters they commit outside the country.
During trial, the 1st and 2nd Appellants did not mention in their evidence that they were Non-
Zambians. All the same, that had no effect because the third Appellant was a Zambian.

The ruling in the matter of the People v. Roxburgh (H.C) (1972) illustrate that the Zambian courts
do not have unlimited territorial jurisdiction to try offences committed outside territorial
boundaries of Zambia. The defendant was not a Zambian citizen, he committed an offence of
bigamy in the United States of America. He was tried in the subordinate court in Zambia. The trial
learned magistrate held that the court had jurisdiction to try any crime committed anywhere in the
world as long as the accused was within the court’s jurisdiction. The matter came before High
Court for review. The High Court held that the court had no unlimited jurisdiction to try offences
committed outside the territorial boundaries of Zambia. The penal code only gives the court
jurisdiction to try Zambian citizens for offences committed outside Zambia and to try non Zambian
citizens for offences partly or wholly committed in Zambia. The decision of the trial court was
quashed and the accused was discharged. 8

The second significance of Sammy’s case concerns the competence of the Court to convict in a
single identifying witness. This brings us to the third ground for dismissing the appeal. The court
of appeal reasoned that it is settled law that the court is competent to convict in a single identifying
witness as long as an issue of honest mistaken identity is ruled out.

In Chimbini v. The People (1977) Z.R. 191, Baron, the President held that: "It is always competent
to convict on the evidence of a single witness if that evidence is clear and satisfactory in every

6
Zulu V. The People (1990-1992) Z.R.62. (S.C).
7
The penal code, cap 87.
8
The People v. Roxburgh (H.C) (1972)

4
respect; where the evidence in question relates to identification there is the additional risk of an
honest mistake, and it is therefore necessary to test the evidence of a single witness with particular
care. The honesty of the witness is not sufficient; the court must be satisfied that he is reliable in
his observation. Many factors must be taken into account, such as whether it was daytime or night
time and, if the latter, the state of the light, the opportunity of the witness to observe the appellant,
the circumstances in which the observation was alleged to have been made.”9

However, the evidence of a single identifying witness must be scrutinized to rule out honest
mistaken identity. As the Supreme Court in the case of Muvuma Kambanja Situna v. the People.
(1982) Z.R.115, held inter-alia that: "The evidence of a single identifying witness must be tested
and evaluated with the greatest care to exclude the dangers of an honest mistake; the witness should
be subjected to searching questions and careful note taken of all the prevailing conditions and the
basis upon which the witness claims to recognize the accused. If the opportunity for a positive and
reliable identification is poor then it follows that the possibility of an honest mistake has not been
ruled out unless there is some other connecting link between the accused and the offence which
would render mistaken identification too much of a coincidence."10

In Zambia, Courts are established by the Constitution and Statutory law. The constitution and
statutes prescribes the jurisdiction of courts in Zambia. For example, the Local Court is established
by Article 120 of the Zambian Constitution Amendment Act no 2 of 2016. And its jurisdiction is
provided for in the Local Court Act Cap 29 of the Laws of Zambia. The subordinate court is
established by Article 120 (1) (a) of the Constitution and the Subordinate Court Act, Cap 28. The
high court is established by article 133 of the constitution and its jurisdiction is provided for by
high court act cap 27. The Supreme Court is established by article 124 of the constitution.11

It is important for a lawyer to know the jurisdiction of the court because jurisdiction determines
the court system which has legal authority to hear and decide the case. The decision made by the
court without jurisdiction over the case is not legally binding. The court without jurisdiction cannot
pass judgment, cannot award damages or compensation to the plaintiff.

9
Chimbini v. The People (1977) Z.R. 191.
10
Muvuma Kambanja Situna v. the People. (1982) Z.R.115.
11
The Zambian constitution amendment no 2 of 2016.

5
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Statutes.

High Court Act, Cap 27 Of The Laws Of Zambia.

The Penal Code, Cap 87.

The Zambian Constitution Amendment No 2 of 2016.

Cases

Chimbini v. The People (1977) Z.R. 191.

George Lipimile and another v. mpulungu harbor management ltd. Appeal 39. (2006).
Muvuma Kambanja Situna v. the People. (1982) Z.R.115.
Sammy Kambilima Ngati, Mumba Chishimba Edward and Davy Musonda Chanda V. the people.
(2003) Z.R.100
Somchai Liangsiriprasert v. Government of United States of America (1) at page 251.
The People v. Roxburgh (H.C) (1972).
Zulu V. The People (1990-1992) Z.R.62. (S.C).