By Staff Reporter
THE Court of Appeal has thrown out an application by murder convict Keith Mukata for leave to appeal against his death sentence out of time.
Court of Appeal judge Dominic Sichinga said Mukata’s application lacked merit.
He also said the appeal has no prospects of success.
In July this year, Mukata, who is a lawyer and former Chilanga UPND member of parliament, applied for permission from the Court of Appeal to lodge his appeal against the death sentence slapped on him in the Supreme Court out of time.
This was after the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Lusaka High Court judge Susan Wanjelani to convict him for murdering Namakwambwa Kalilakwenda and sentencing him to death by hanging.
The court found him guilty of shooting dead Kalilakwenda, who was a security guard at his law firm AKM Legal Practitioners, on May 6, 2018.
But Mukata applied to appeal out of time, saying he wanted to be heard by the highest court of the land before his life is taken away.
In his application for leave, he submitted that the Court of Appeal erred in law and fact by dismissing all the grounds of appeal presented before them, except one.
He also wanted to argue that the Court of Appeal erred in law and fact by maintaining the finding of the trial judge that the deceased was shot from inside the premises when the basis upon which she made that finding was in fact dismissed on appeal.
Mukata had further submitted that if allowed to appeal, he will argue that the Court of Appeal erred in law and fact by making conclusions and findings of fact on appeal, unsupported by the evidence on the record and also that it erred when it varied the evidence of the witness regarding the 9mm cartridge that he picked from the crime scene.
He stated that he desires the Supreme Court to adjudicate and pronounce itself on the finding of the court made in correcting the testimony of the witness PW6 regarding the 9mm cartridge, thereby contradicting the position which was settled by the lower court and the prosecutor.
Mukata also wants the court to pronounce itself on the lower court’s allowing his ground of appeal which challenged the trial judge’s finding that there was no blood splatter on the side gate, thus leading to the conclusion that the deceased was shot from inside the premises, but the court at the same time failed to disturb the finding of the deceased being shot from inside of the crime scene premises, among other issues.