[1991] UGHC 56

The Hen, Mr. Justice F. M. S Engande<br>Niemdle

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UG NDA AT KAMPALA CRIMINAL REVISION ORDER, NO. 31/91

IBRAHIM MOHANED ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

VERSUS -

UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice G. M. Okello:

## REVISION ORDER:

The accused in this case was charged with and convicted on his own pleas guilty on four counts of traffic offences under valous sections of the Traffic .and Rhad Safety . ict. 38/70. He was subsequently sentenced as follows:-

> "Count 1:- fine $1000/-$ or 4 weeks Count 2:- fine $1000/=$ or 4 weeks Count 3:- fine $500/=$ or 3 weeks Count 4:- fine $500/$ = or 3 weeks

The Chief Magistrate of the area forwarded the relevant case file to this court for a possible revision order on the grounds that the pleas on which the convictions were based were equivocal and hence the convictions were bad. Secondly that the default sentences in each count was illegal as they violate section 192(d) of the MCA 70 as amended by Act 4 of $1985$ .

For a conviction to be properly based on a plea of guilty, the plea must unequivocally admit all the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. (See Adan v Republic (1973) EA) $445$ .

In the instant case, the pleas as recorded are clearly vague and do not clearly admit all the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. It is however my view that such vague pleas as "I admit" may be cured by the narrated facts if the facts clearly show the commission of the alleged offence and the accused admit the truth of them. (Authority for this proposition is still the well known case of Adan v nepublic (1973) Ea 445.

When the relevant-file was-sent to the DPP for his views, h.iss Maureen Owor a State Attorney writing-for the DPP in her letter re.6/4/2 of 16/11/90 described the pleas as equivocal- on \*all the counts and bad in law. That the resultant convictions based on these pleas are also bad in law, she also dismissed all the default sentences as illegal for violating section ¹⁹² of the L'iCA'⁷⁰ as amended by Act Z] of 1985\* That in all cases the maximum length of default sentence should have been ⁷ days since the amount of the fine imposed did not exceed Shs.2000/=. The lea,med state Attorney did not wish to be admitted, heard in the event of a Revisional Order beingnade.

- ² -

accused

I found When I perused\*'tlie narrated facts the correctness of which the accusedywas that the ~ driving a Tractor on a road when he was stopped by a Police Officer on Traffic duty. On checking the officer found that the accused had no valid driving permit. This gave rise to a charge of Driving the motor vehicle without a valid Driving Permit C/S 128(a) and l8.3(2)(e) of the Traffic and &>ad Safety-Act 1970 in count Mo.1. The check further revealed that the Tractor at that time time had no registration Member Plato. This gave rise to the charfee of possessing an un registered motor vehicle C/S 8 and 52(l)( 2) of the Traffic and Soad Safety Act in count 2. ^A farther check revealed that the said tractor had not been even licensed and this gave rise to charge in count No. 3\* This charged the accused with using on the road a motor vehicle (Tractor) which is not licensed contrary to sections 13 and 185(1) of the Traffic and Poad Safety Act 1970.

> Still further, the check revealed that the Tractor was not in good working condition. This gave rise to the charge in count Mo. 4# This charged the , co .... accused with using on the road a motor vehicle in a dangerous machanical . condition contrary to sections 115(1) ahd (5) of the Traffic and doad Safety Act 1970.

The facts however de not show clearly what was wrong with the Tractor to make it not in a good working condition. The accused however admitted the correctness of those facts.

/□

In ay view the admission by the accused of the correctness of those clear facts, cured the vagueness of the pleas in count Nos 1,2, and 3\* He car not be said to have been prejudiced by the convictions since he knew for sure what he admitted\* The convictions in counts Nos 1,2 and ³ are therefore proper and will stand\*

As regards count ⁴ however, the facts relating to it were also vague. This left the vague plea equivocal and consequently the resultant conviction is bad in law. It can not be allov/ed to stand. It is accordingly' quashed.

With regard to the sentence, I am of the view that the sentence of "fine 1000/= or ⁴ weeks" is vague. The trial Magistrate ought to have clearly ^&lt; stated "count 1:- Fined 1000/= or 4 weeks imprisonment in default." To say merely "fine 1000/= or ⁴ weeks" could mean that the trial Magistrate is giving the accused an option of either paying the fine of 1000/= or ⁴ weeks. Such optional sentence is not known to our lav/. It is unlawful.

Be that as it may if the four weeks was meant to be ^a default sentence for a fine of 1000/= and the three weeks as a default sentence Tor *a,* fine of 500/=, the default sentences are clearly illegal because section 192(d) of the MCA170 as amended by Act 4 of 1985 prescribed the maximum period of imprisonment in d fault of payment of a fine which does not exceed 2000/= to ⁷ days only. The default sentences are accordingly set aside and in their places the following substitutions are r.ade.

Count 1s- Fine 1000/= or ⁷ days imprisonment in default of payment Count 2:~ - do - Count 3s- ^ine 500/= or ⁷ days imprisonment in defaulty of payment Count 4s- Sentence set aside.

0 ^R ^D F ^R : Any payment of fine in count 4 which might have been made by the accused must be refunded to him.

JUDGE, 3/5/91