[1995] UGHC 57
The court held that since an appeal was available to the accused but was not pursued, revision proceedings could not be entertained at the instance of the applicant. The law under section 341(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly prohibits revision in such circumstances. Furthermore, there was no evidence on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1995] UGHC 57
- Parties
- Applicant: Angutuko Haward; Respondent: Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 39 of 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Application for Revision of Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- application for revision dismissed; file returned to Chief Magistrate for retention
- Judges
- GM OKELLO, J
- Legal Topics
- Revision Proceedings, Plea of Guilty, Mental Health Defence, Sentencing, Appeal Rights
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Angutuko Haward
Applicant
Uganda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Application for Revision of Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether revision proceedings can be entertained where an appeal lies but was not lodged by the party.
- 2 Whether the accused's mental state at the time of the offence invalidated the conviction based on a guilty plea.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since an appeal was available to the accused but was not pursued, revision proceedings could not be entertained at the instance of the applicant. The law under section 341(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly prohibits revision in such circumstances. Furthermore, there was no evidence on the trial record to suggest that the magistrate had reason to believe the accused was of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence. The plea of guilty was unequivocal, and the facts admitted by the accused constituted the offence charged. Therefore, the conviction and sentence were proper, and no basis existed for revision. The file was returned to the Chief Magistrate...
Court Disposition
application for revision dismissed; file returned to Chief Magistrate for retention
Orders
- The file is returned to the Chief Magistrate Arua for retention.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
## THU REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
ORDER:
## IN HE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA. AT KAMPALA
## CRIMINAL REVISION NO, 39 OF 1^93
ANGUTUKO HAWARD VRS. APPLICANT
UGANDA **oocnooooooo OOOOOO39OO0''5ooOf <sup>&</sup>gt; <sup>2</sup> ' \* <sup>0</sup> •** RESPONDENT BEFORE; <sup>P</sup>IE HON, MR, JUSTICE G0M, OlOLLO
This file was at the instance of the applicant/convict'<sup>s</sup> father placed before me for a possible Revision order. According to the record of the proceedings before the trial Chief Magistrate of Arua and the subsequent correspondence from one Enirob, C, Albino, father of the convict, the accused was convicted on his own plea of guilty of theft of a bicycle contrary to sections 252 and 255 of the Penal Code Act. He was a first offender but was subsequently sentenced by the trial Magistrate to <sup>18</sup> months imprisonment. The trial Magistrate gave reasons for that sentence.
Subsequently, Enirobo C, Albino, the father of the convict wrote to the Chief Magistrate informing him that the convict was at the material time of the commission of the theft, mentally sick. He attached medical Form <sup>111</sup> to substantiate his assertion. Then he requested that his son be handed back to him.
On receipt of that letter, the Chief Magistrate forwarded the relevant filo and the correspondence to this court for "necessary action". The Assistant Registrar (Crime) placed the file before me for "perusal and guidance".
Tho law governing Revision proceedings are contained in section 339 to 344 of tho Criminal Procedure Code. Section <sup>341</sup> (5) particularly prohibits entertainment of a /revision proceedings at the instance of a party where an appeal lies but was not lodged by the would-be appellant. The sub-section reads thus,
"(5) whore an appeal lios from any finding, sentoneo or order and no appoal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of tho party who could have appealed".
I think tho above sub-section applies with equal force to the facts of this case\$ for if the accused was convicted when ho was mentally sick and consequently incapable of making his defence, that was a good ground for appeal. <sup>A</sup> proceeding by way of revision was not opened to him.
The procedure for dealing with such an accused person was provided for in section <sup>111</sup> of tho Magistrate's Court Act 1970o But there was nothing on the record suggesting that the trial Magistrate had reason to boliovo that the accused was of unsound Mind and consequently incapable of making his defence. Tho conviction was proper as the plea was clearly unequivocal and the admitted facts constituted tho alleged offence.
For tho reasons given above, tho file is returned to tho Chief Magistrate Arua for retention.
G. M. 0IC3LL0
JUDG3 28/2/95
2