JUDGMENT
There were five grounds of appeal against conviction. During the hearing Mr Khaminwa for the appellant confined his submissions to the particulars given in the charge sheet which he contended did not contain all the ingredients of the offence nor, he submitted, were the omissions covered in the statement made to the court by the prosecutor. On account of these omissions Mr Khaminwa contended the plea was not unequivocal. To Mr Chunga’s objection that the charge being defective was not a ground of appeal Mr Khaminwa drew attention to the 2nd and 4th grounds of appeal which read as follows:-
2. That the learned judges erred in law in holding that all the ingredients of the offence were urged understood and admitted.
4. That the learned judges erred in holding that the appellant’s plea in the lower court was of the clearest unequivocal nature.
The court with some reluctance allowed Mr Khaminwa to continue to make submissions in respect of the inadequacy of the particulars in the cha…