Skip to document content
Skip to main menu
Skip to search
Home
Judgments
Legislation
Publications
Newsletters
Speeches
Law Reform Reports
Paralegal Resources
Gazettes
Bills
About
Help
Home
Judgments
Court of Appeal of Zambia
Court of Appeal of Zambia - 1970 May
3 judgments
Advanced search
Years
Skip past years
All years
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2006
2001
1976
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
Browse by year
All years
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2006
2001
1976
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
Months
Skip past months
All months
January
February
April
May
June
July
October
December
Browse by month
All months
January
February
April
May
June
July
October
December
Filters
Skip to results
Filters
Judges
Skip to next filter group
Doyle CJ
Hughes JA
Magnus J
Pickett JA
Alphabet
Skip to next filter group
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
u
v
w
x
y
z
Filter documents by title
Sort documents by
Title (A - Z)
Title (Z - A)
Date (Newest first)
Date (Oldest first)
Filter
Results. 3 judgments found.
3 judgments
Citation
Sort by Citation ascending
Judgment date
Sort by Judgment date ascending
May 1970
Boy Otto v The People (Appeal No. 83 of 1969) [1970] ZMCA 8 (13 May 1970)
Failure to produce an accused's exculpatory statements in recent possession cases can vitiate the conviction.
Criminal law — Recent possession — Explanation by person found in possession is crucial — Duty of police and prosecution to produce all statements taken from an accused, whether favourable or adverse — Omission may vitiate conviction.
13 May 1970
Otto v People (Appeal 83 of 1969) [1970] ZMCA 4 (13 May 1970)
Non-disclosure of an accused's exculpatory police statement vitiates a conviction for recent possession.
Criminal law — Recent possession — Duty of police/prosecution to produce all statements taken from accused, including exculpatory statements; selective disclosure may render conviction unsafe; proviso inapplicable where nondisclosure misleads trial court.
13 May 1970
Patel v Border Motor Company Ltd and Ors [1970] ZMCA 5 (13 May 1970)
"Have regard to" in s.9(1)(a) requires adjustment, not mandatory full deduction, of statutory compensation from third-party damages.
Workmen's Compensation — s.9(1)(a) proviso "have regard to" — interpretation does not require literal deduction of whole statutory compensation from damages against third parties; distinction from s.8 (actions against employer); statutory minimums (s.59) may overcompensate — courts must adjust common-law awards to avoid double recovery; assessment and detailing of damages.
13 May 1970
1
Current page, page 1
>