MOOT COURT NOTES BY R.

SAMAKAYI (MRS)
CUZL 361- MOOT COURT
1.

INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE

(A)

THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS

The Supreme Court
The High Court
The Industrial Relations Court
The Subordinate Court
The Local Courts

(B)

DRESS

Student Advocates are advised to follow the dress Code as prescribed in Practice
Direction No. of 200

this practice direction amended the Practice Direction No. 3 of 1977

which prescribed the type of dress expected of lawyers when appearing before Court. While it is
not expected of students to wear stiff collars, white bands, and white wigs or black gowns the
following dress should be worn during moot sittings.
1.

The Supreme Court and High Court

(a)

Female Advocates:

A black gown, white, blue-striped or red-striped long sleeved collarless blouse, a stiff white wing collar and
white bands, black, navy blue or dark grey skirt with a matching coat when desired
With the exception of State Counsel it shall not be compulsory to wear wigs

(b)

Male Advocates:

A black gown, dark or dark-striped long trousers and jacket, a white, blue-striped or red-striped collarless
shirt, a stiff white wing collar and white bands.
With the exception of State Counsel it shall not be compulsory to wear wigs.

2.

The Subordinate Courts:

(i)

Female Advocates:

Any neat costume of decent and reasonable length.

(ii)

Male Advocates:

A suit or jacket and long trousers worn with a shirt and tie or a safari suit with cravat.

(c)

In either case the attire has to be elegant. Short Trousers, jeans, hats of any sort

and sun glasses are not authorized.

(d)

Practice Direction No. 1 of 1977 dated 28th March, 1977, was revoked.

Note that short trousers, jeans, hats of whatever description and sun glasses are not allowed.
Artificial looks are rarely liked by judges in court rooms.
2

ORDER OF SITTING
Moot Court sessions for the High or Supreme Court of Cavendish University are in a form

of appeals. The normal sitting arrangement is that the appellant counsel sit on the judges left while
the opposing counsel sit on the judges right facing the court. This is the prevailing sitting
arrangement in all the courts.
3.

ADDRESSING THE COURT

The judges who sit are addressed as Lord or Lords, lady or ladies. When addressing the

judge you say My Lord, Your Lordships used as a substitute for You. Instead of saying As you
mentioned You should politely say As Your Lordship said.
Opening the Case
A correct, polite and usual formula for opening the case is:
May it please your Lordship(s), or Ladyship(s) , or may it please the honourable court, My
name is From there you introduce also the colleague who is assisting you and the firm or
chambers where you are coming from. Out of courtesy the most senior among the counsel is the
one who will introduce all the counsel for the Appellant(s) and for the Respondent(s). If you are of
the same rank the Appellants counsel will do the introductions. The counsel assisting is my learned
colleague. The opposing counsel is referred to as my learned friend(s) from such and such
chambers or firm of the opposing counsel.
The correct court procedure is that you rise to your feet each time you are to or when are
address the court. When the other side raises an objection you sit to allow the other counsel to
stand up and address the court. This is a matter of professional courtesy.

Speak audibly, politely and slowly. This will allow for the recording of the evidence. Do not
speak fast but at the same time avoid being too slow and boring. It is best not to read to the bench
from your brief.
First tell the court what you intend to show the court. State the arguments you will take
and the arguments you reserve for your learned colleague who is appearing with you. Know you
facts well and carefully state them objectively. Objectivity will ensure that you will not speak
emotionally. Avoid speculation about the facts. Get to the gist of your arguments quickly and avoid
being tedious. Since you would have exchanged your arguments with your learned friends you
are required to know your and their arguments well. Answer questions promptly and directly. If you
do not know the answers seek leave to consult your learned colleague. When you have an obvious
valid objection from the Bench, concede the point gracefully by saying much obliged my Lord.
4.

USE OF AUTHORITIES
Only important points need supporting authorities. You should know the value of the

authorities that you cite. As authorities textbooks should be used sparingly. At the time when you
have to read out a passage as authority; do so slowly and emphasise the points that you consider
helpful to your argument. Use authorities for exact issues raised. Avoid use of abbreviations in your
speech. Thus in citing the reference [1935} AC 462 you should say reported in Appeal Cases for
1935 at page four hundred and sixty-two. When quoting an obiter dicta there is no need to state
the facts of the case as just the dictum will suffice.
5.

PERSUASIVENESS
You must have the ability to persuade the court to follow your point of view.

6.

LOGIC AND REASONABLENESS

Have a good command of the knowledge on the law. Identify legal issues and discuss the

case in relation to the facts. You must show a sufficient degree of reasoning and logic. This is to
demonstrate your ability to persuade the bench.

7.

HANDS IN THE POCKET

It may be perfectly normal for counsel to address the court with hands in the pocket; it is
not advisable for counsel to address the court with hands in his pocket during school moots. Leo
Page, in his First Steps in Advocacy p. 55 gives part of the reason:
One often sees a solicitor addressing a bench of magistrates with his hands in his pocket. It is
undeniable that whether a solicitor speaks with his hands in his pocket or with a cigarette behind his ear has
literally nothing to do with the value of what he has to say to the court. Nevertheless, he should, do neither of
these things, for the all sufficient reason that they affect his efficiency as an advocate. They affect it because
those who sit upon the benches prefer that lawyers of which ever branch of the profession should give the
impression that they are assisting in the performance of an important public duty, that of the administration of
justice

8.

GENERAL
Good moot judges are meant to give student advocates a really good grilling. Thus the

judge might ask strange questions or raise most unusual objections. Theses are merely meant to
assess your reactions. This, is very unlikely I real life court situations. AVOID at all costs expressing
personal opinions about the law. Never say in my opinion the law should be or is like this. As a
lawyer your duty is only to submit or suggest.
Never lose your temper or get over emotional over your non-existent clients case.
At the same time, remember that two of your duties as an advocate are

9.

(i)

Not to mislead the court (for you are an officer of the court), and

(ii

put your clients case as best as is possible stand or fall with your client.

SUBMISSIONS
The written submissions must be typed neatly and 1.5 lines spaced. Follow the Specimen

provided. Note that the specimen for Moot Court written submissions are I some respects different
from the submissions filed in either case at the High Court or the Supreme Court for Zambia. For
instance, while you are allowed to have your name on the briefs, it suffices to have only the firms
name and a legal Practitioners signature in real life situations.
You are advised to read the Supreme Court rules for details on the correct way of preparing the
record of appeal to the Supreme Court.

The full course must be taken seriously. Once you are given a moot question by Monday,
you have 7 days to prepare. The Counsel acting for the appellants will prepare grounds of appeal
and give the Respondents their brief by Wednesday. The Respondents answer to grounds of
appeal will give grounds of response on Friday.
There must be research on the moot question, you find the legal issues involved, find the
law and then apply it.
Typed briefs will be handed in on Monday before appearing.
10.

SPECIMEN FORMS

SPECIMEN CULZ 361 for APPELLANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CAVEDISH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1 OF 2007

HOLDEN AT THE MAIN CAMPUS AT LUSAKA

(CRIMINAL JURISDICTION)
BETWEEN:
HENRIQUES MANDA

APPELLANT

AND
THE PEOPLE

RESPONDENTS

RECORD OF APPEAL

Filed by: .. ESQ,

AND ESQ,
PEPULA & ASSOCIATES,
PLOT #.17, TIZA RD
KULIMA TOWER, FOURTH FLOOR
LUSAKA.
ADVOCATES FOR THE APPELLANTS

TO: The Respondent(s) and His Advocates,

ESQ,
ESQ,
D.P.Ps CHAMBERS,
LUSAKA
ADVOCATES FOR THE RESPONDENTS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CAVENDISH

CRIMINAL/CIVIL APPEAL NO... OF 2008

HOLDEN AT THE MAIN CAMPUS AT LUSAKA

(CRIMINAL/CIVIL JURISDICTION)
BETWEEN:
HENRIQUES MANDA

APPELLANT

AND
THE PEOPLE

RESPONDENTS

INDEX

Page 2INDEX
Page 3...MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
Page 4..................RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT BELOW
Page 5..HEADS OF ARGUMENT
Page 6....LIST OF AUTHORITIES

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CAVENDISH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008

HOLDEN AT THE MAIN CAMPUS AT LUSAKA

(CRIMINAL/CIVIL JURISDICTION)
BETWEEN:
HENRIQUES MANDA

APPELLANT

AND
THE PEOPLE

RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

GROUND ONE

GROUND TWO

GROUND THREE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CAVENDISH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No OF 2008

HOLDEN AT THE MAIN CAMPUS AT LUSAKA

(CRIMINAL/CIVIL JURISDICTION)
BETWEEN:
HENRIQUES MANDA

APPELLANT

AND
THE PEOPLE

RESPONDENTS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT BELOW

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CAVENDISH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOof 2008

HOLDEN AT THE MAIN CAMPUS AT LUSAKA

(CRIMINAL JURISDICTION)
BETWEEN:
HENRIQUES MANDA

APPELLANT

AND
THE PEOPLE

RESPONDENTS

HEADS OF ARGUMENT

GROUND ONE

GROUND TWO

GROUND THREE

10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CAVENDISH

CRIMINAL/CIVIL APPEAL NO... OF 2008

HOLDEN AT THE MAIN CAMPUS AT LUSAKA

(CRIMINAL/CIVIL JURISDICTION)
BETWEEN:
HENRIQUES MANDA

APPELLANT

AND
THE PEOPLE

RESPONDENTS

LIST OF ATHORITIES

11

BRIEF FOR RESPPODENT - SPECIMEN CULZ 361

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CAVEDISH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1 OF 2007

HOLDEN AT THE MAIN CAMPUS AT LUSAKA

(CRIMINAL JURISDICTION)
BETWEEN:
HENRIQUES MANDA

APPELLANT

AND
THE PEOPLE

RESPONDENTS

RECORD OF RESPONSE

Filed by: .. ESQ,

AND ESQ,
D.P.Ps CHAMBERS,
LUSAKA
ADVOCATES FOR THE RESPONDENTS

TO: The Appellant(s) and His Advocates,

ESQ,
ESQ
PEPULA & ASSOCIATES,
PLOT #.17, TIZA RD
KULIMA TOWER, FOURTH FLOOR
LUSAKA.
ADVOCATES FOR THE APPELLANTS

12

THE CAVENDISH UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA

SCHOOL OF LAW
LECTURER: MRS. R. SAMAKAYI
CUZL 361- MOOT COURT
MOOT QUESTION NO 1
The appellant Mr. Henriques Manda was tried in the High Court of Zambia, convicted
sentenced to death for murder contrary to Section 200 of the Penal Code, Cap 87 of the Laws of
Zambia. He was convicted of the murder one Isaac Zuze on the basis of strong circumstantial
evidence. The trial judge found that the facts which were not in dispute were that: on 7 th October,
2007, the appellant had called at the residence of the deceased and the two left the premises
together; that that night the deceased did not return and by the afternoon of the following day a
search was launched for him. The search yielded nothing. In the evening of the same day, the
appellant arrived at the deceaseds house and upon being questioned about the deceaseds
whereabouts; he stated that they had parted company the night before. However, after a tip off
from the some members of public a few days later, the appellant was arrested and questioned by
the police. He then led the police to a shallow grave in the nearby bush where the decomposing
remains of the deceased were discovered. The deceased had been shot at point blank range.
Forensic examination matched the bullet retrieved from the deceaseds body and ammunition in a
fireman belonging to appellant that was found at the appellants house. The appellant appeals
against conviction and sentence.
The appellant feels strongly:
1. That the learned trial judge erred in fact and in law in convicting him for murder of Isaac Zuze
without ascertaining whether or not he committed the alleged murder.

13

2. That the learned trial judge erred in fact and in law in convicting him for murder on a basis of
strong circumstantial evidence as the prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt
that he killed the deceased.

You are the Appellants or the Respondents Counsel, using legal concepts or principles argue the
case for or against the conviction and sentence before the Supreme Court of Zambia.

14