Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 154 views

    THE PEOPLE V DAUTI TIYESANJE PHIRI (1985)

    Uploaded by

    talk2marvin70
    This document summarizes a court case from 1985 regarding whether a subordinate court can acquit in a case that it does not have jurisdiction to try. Specifically: 1) The accused was charged with aggravated robbery, an offense triable by the High Court, before a subordinate court. For over a year, the prosecution repeatedly requested adjournments because the DPP had not issued a committal certificate. 2) On the 25th adjournment request, the subordinate court refused and acquitted the accused for want of prosecution. 3) The High Court held that the subordinate court could not acquit as it did not have jurisdiction over the case. An acquittal can only be entered if

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    THE PEOPLE V DAUTI TIYESANJE PHIRI (1985)

    Uploaded by

    talk2marvin70
    154 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from 1985 regarding whether a subordinate court can acquit in a case that it does not have jurisdiction to try. Specifically: 1) The accused was charged with aggravated robbery, an offense triable by the High Court, before a subordinate court. For over a year, the prosecution repeatedly requested adjournments because the DPP had not issued a committal certificate. 2) On the 25th adjournment request, the subordinate court refused and acquitted the accused for want of prosecution. 3) The High Court held that the subordinate court could not acquit as it did not have jurisdiction over the case. An acquittal can only be entered if

    Original Title

    THE PEOPLE v DAUTI TIYESANJE PHIRI [1985]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case from 1985 regarding whether a subordinate court can acquit in a case that it does not have jurisdiction to try. Specifically: 1) The accused was charged with aggravated robbery, an offense triable by the High Court, before a subordinate court. For over a year, the prosecution repeatedly requested adjournments because the DPP had not issued a committal certificate. 2) On the 25th adjournment request, the subordinate court refused and acquitted the accused for want of prosecution. 3) The High Court held that the subordinate court could not acquit as it did not have jurisdiction over the case. An acquittal can only be entered if

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    154 views2 pages

    THE PEOPLE V DAUTI TIYESANJE PHIRI (1985)

    Uploaded by

    talk2marvin70
    This document summarizes a court case from 1985 regarding whether a subordinate court can acquit in a case that it does not have jurisdiction to try. Specifically: 1) The accused was charged with aggravated robbery, an offense triable by the High Court, before a subordinate court. For over a year, the prosecution repeatedly requested adjournments because the DPP had not issued a committal certificate. 2) On the 25th adjournment request, the subordinate court refused and acquitted the accused for want of prosecution. 3) The High Court held that the subordinate court could not acquit as it did not have jurisdiction over the case. An acquittal can only be entered if

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    THE PEOPLE v DAUTI TIYESANJE PHIRI (1985) Z.R. 201 (H.C.

    )
    HIGH COURT
    (BWEUPE, J. )
    30TH AUGUST 1985
    (CASE NO. HPR/372/ 1985)

    Flynote
    Criminal Law and Procedure - Acquittal - Whether court can acquit where it has no jurisdiction to
    try a case.
    Criminal Law and Procedure - Acquittal - Circumstances where court may acquit.
    Criminal Law and Procedure - Subordinate court - Procedure - Alternatives in dealing with cases
    triable by the High Court.

    Headnote
    The accused was changed before a Subordinate Court with aggravated robbery, an offence triable
    by the High Court.

    On twenty-four separate occasions stretching over a period of one year the accused appeared before
    a subordinate court and on go each occasion an adjournment was made at the instance of the
    prosecution because the Director of Public Prosecutions had not issued certificate to enable the
    court to commit the accused to the High Court for summary trial.

    On the twenty-fifth occasion the court refused to grant the prosecution any further adjournment
    and acquitted the accused for want of prosecution. The prosecution applied to the High Court for
    review of the order of acquittal.

    Held:
    (i) A court cannot acquit or convict in a case which it has no jurisdiction to try.
    (ii) An acquittal can only be entered where evidence has been led or if not led where the
    prosecution has offered no evidence.
    (iii) In dealing with cases triable by the High Court, if it thinks that waiting for a certificate of
    committal for summary trial would occasion injustice to an accused person, a subordinate
    court may either order the immediate holding of a preliminary inquiry or order the
    summary discharge of the accused person for want of prosecution.

    p202

    Legislation referred to:


    Criminal Procedure Code, Cap.160, ss.224, 230.
    __________________________________________
    Judgment
    BWEUPE, J.: This case has been sent to the High Court for review.

    The accused was charged with aggravated robbery contrary to section 294 of the Penal Code. On
    10th October, 1984, he appeared before the subordinate court of the first class for the Lusaka
    District for committal to the High Court for summary trial. He was not so committed because the
    Director of Public Prosecutions has not issued a certificate committing the accused to the High
    Court for summary trial as is required by the Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

    On twenty-four different dates the learned Senior Resident Magistrate graciously granted an
    application by the Public Prosecutor for an adjournment on similar grounds namely that the
    Director of Public Prosecutions had not given instructions to have the accused committed to the
    High Court. When the 25th application was made on similar ground the Senior Resident
    Magistrate's, patience ran out and summed up the case in these words-
    "The Director of Public Prosecutions does not seem to make up his mind, I could make up
    their mind. The accused had been brought to court for nearly a year awaiting instructions.
    What is being there is perpetration of injustice through indecision. I acquit accused for want
    of prosecution."

    I totally endorse the first part of the learned Magistrate's sentiments and concern that the learned
    Director of Public Prosecutions suffered from unwarranted indecision resulting in justice being
    denied to the accused.

    However, the learned Magistrate seriously misdirected himself when he said "I acquit accused for
    want of prosecution" for two reasons:

    Firstly, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try aggravated robbery. He cannot, therefore "acquit"
    (or convict) where he has no powers to do so.

    Secondly, "acquittal" can only be entered where evidence has been laid or if not laid where the
    prosecution has offered no evidence. In this case the prosecution could not lay or offer no evidence
    because this case was not within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate.

    In the circumstances of this case the Magistrate had one of the two alternatives open to him. These
    are:

    Firstly, the learned Senior Resident Magistrate should have ordered a Preliminary Inquiry to
    be conducted under section 224 of the Criminal Procedure Code. And if at the end of the
    day the court considers that the evidence against the accused not

    p203

    sufficient to put him on his trial the court shall forthwith "Discharge" the accused: Section
    230 of the Criminal Procedure Code refers.

    It can clearly be seen that even where evidence has been adduced the Magistrate has no power to
    "acquit" for the simple reason that one can only "acquit" where one has jurisdiction to "convict" and
    mete out punishment.

    Second, if the learned Senior Resident Magistrate satisfied himself that injustice was being
    deliberately perpetrated he should have simply made the observations as he rightly did and then
    "DISCHARGE" the accused.

    For reasons aforegoing I hold that the learned Magistrate fell in a serious error. Under the
    revisionary powers conferred upon me under section 338 (1) (a) (i) of the Criminal Procedure Code
    I set aside the order of the Magistrate and direct that any of the procedures laid down in section 222
    or 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be complied with.

    Order set aside on review


    ___________________________________________

    You might also like