Liswaniso v the people 1976 zr 272
WebHaonga v The People (1976) Z.R. 200 Katebe v The People (1975) Z.R. 13 Liswaniso v The People (1976) Z.R. 277 Machipisha Kombe v The People (2009) Z.R. 282 Machobane v The People (1972) Z.R. 101 Mutale and Phiri v The People (1995-97) Z.R. 227 Muwowo v The People (1969) Z.R. 67 Mwewa Murono v The People (2004) Z.R. 207 Nsofu v … WebLiswaniso Sitali and Ors v Mopani Coppermines Plc (SCZ 19 of 2004, Appeal 94 of 2003) [2004] ZMSC 98 (03 June 2004); Media neutral citation [2004] ZMSC 98. Coram. Chirwa, …
Liswaniso v the people 1976 zr 272
Did you know?
WebMachipisha Kombe v The People [2009] Z.R. 282 LEGISLATION REFERRED TO: 1.The Penal Code, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This appeal emanates from the judgment of the High Court (Chitabo, J.), delivered in Chipata on 11th December 2024. 1.2 The appellant, initially appeared before the Subordinate Court (Hon. … Web1 dec. 1998 · The learned trial Judge further erred both in law and fact when he found that the respondent s withdrawal of the offer of employment after being reinstated was justified on the ground that the appellant had absented himself from employment for a period of ten days and was therefore a deserter.
WebIN THE HIGH COURT OF ZAMBIA HP/42/2024 OCT 2024 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Criminal Jurisdiction) BEFORE HON MRS OCTOBER, 2024 For the State For the Accused persons CASES REFERRED TO: THE PEOPLE RICHARD MUKW JONES CHIS JOHN NJOBVU, THIS 6th OF COSMAS TEMBO BINACK KASOSA JUSTICE S. KAUNDA NEWA DAY … WebTHE ADMISSIBILITY OF DERIVATIVE EVIDENCE IN ZAMBIA IN LIGHT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS AND THE NEED TO DISCARD LISWANISO VERSUS THE …
Web(1) The wife or husband of a person charged with an offence under any enactment mentioned in the schedule to this Act may be called as a witness either for the … Web6 mrt. 2024 · In the 1976 case of Liswaniso v The People, the Zambian Supreme Court held that illegally obtained evidence is admissible as long as it is relevant. Since then, …
Web6 mrt. 2024 · In the 1976 case of Liswaniso v The People, the Zambian Supreme Court held that illegally obtained evidence is admissible as long as it is relevant. Since then, unsuccessful attempts have been made to convince the Supreme Court and the High Court to reconsider this position, especially when the evidence in question has been obtained …
Web16 jul. 1998 · The Supreme Court erred in its Liswaniso vs the people landmark judgment over 20 years ago as it gave police the authority to obtain evidence illegally, High Court … phim the duchessWebEMMANUEL PHIRI v THE PEOPLE (1982) Z.R. 77 (S.C.) SUPREME COURT NGULUBE, D.C.J., GARDNER AND MUWO , JJ.S 27TH JULY ,1982 (S.C.Z. JUDGMENT NO. 21 OF 1982) APPEAL NO. 56 OF 1982 Flynote Evidence - Corroboration - Rape - Elements to be corroborated - Application of proviso - Whether Appropriate. Headnote tsme ebay storeWebKambanja Muvuma Situna v The People (1982) ZR 115 16. Liswaniso Sitali and Others v Mopani Copper Mines Plc (2004) ZR 176 17. Karuma Son of Kaniu v The Queen ( 1955 ... (1977) ZR 394 29. Nzala v The People (1976) ZR 221 30. Ilunga Kabala and John Masefu v The People (1981) ZR 102 • • -J 3-31. Jack Maulla and Asukile Mwapuki vs. The ... tsmedadm tsche in 2022WebMr Mwanakatwe for the applicant has advanced two main grounds in support of the application. These are: (1) that the grounds of detention were too general, imprecise and … phim the duoWebJOSEPH KNOX SIMWANZA v THE PEOPLE (1985) Z.R. 15 (S.C.) SUPREME COURT ... Liswaniso v The People (1976) Z.R. 277 p17 ... 1985 ZR p19 NGULUBE DCJ its discretion of its own motion when the result would merely be to prejudice the accused's position. tsm earning reportWebLiswaniso v The People (1976) ZR 272; Masiye Motels Limited v Rescue Shoulders Estate Agency Limited (Ex parte Nsunka Kalobwe, Rabbi Sambo and Victor Kaluba Chilekwa) … phim the eagleWebThe People The appellant was charged with defilement contrary to Section 138 of the Penal Code, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia (unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under 16 years) and was sentenced to the minimum mandatory sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. On behalf of the appellant, the appeal was filed on two grounds. t smeedeshof