[1990] UGHC 43
The accused unequivocally pleaded guilty to the charge of theft and admitted the facts as narrated. The trial magistrate properly convicted and sentenced the accused to two months imprisonment. There was no error or irregularity in the proceedings to warrant revision. The sentence imposed does not require...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1990] UGHC 43
- Parties
- Accused: John Olal; Respondent: Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 19 of 1989
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Order
- Outcome
- No revision order issued; file returned to Magistrate's Court.
- Judges
- GM OKELLO, J
- Legal Topics
- Theft, Plea of Guilty, Conviction on Plea, Sentence Confirmation, Magistrate Supervision
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Olal
Accused
Uganda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused's plea was unequivocal and valid for conviction.
- 2 Whether there was any error or irregularity in the proceedings requiring revision.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed required confirmation by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The accused unequivocally pleaded guilty to the charge of theft and admitted the facts as narrated. The trial magistrate properly convicted and sentenced the accused to two months imprisonment. There was no error or irregularity in the proceedings to warrant revision. The sentence imposed does not require confirmation by the High Court under the applicable statutory provisions. The forwarding of the file by the Chief Magistrate without specifying any errors or irregularities was improper and contrary to statutory requirements.
Court Disposition
No revision order issued; file returned to Magistrate's Court.
Orders
- No revision order is necessary.
- File to be returned to the Magistrate's Court of Aloi for retention.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
## IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA.
of the Mis Enganda Wad
CRIMINAL ( SE NO $19/1989$
JOHN OLAL :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ACCISED
VERSUS
UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice G. M. Okello:
ORDER:
This is one of the Seventy four Criminal case files from the Magistrate's Court of <sup>A</sup>loi which the Ag = Chief Magistrate Lira forwarded to this Court with a remark "for nevision and Confirmation of Sentence".
The accused in this case was charged with theft contrary to section 252 of the Penal Code Act. To that charge the accused is recorded to have pleaded thus
"I admit the charge. I stole beams of the complainat. I am sorry.<sup> $n$ </sup>
When the facts were narrated and put to him, the accused admitted the truth of them. The trial Magistrate then proceeded to convict him on his own plea. After his allocutus, the Accused was sentenced to 2 months imprisonment.
I find the above plea, unequivocal plea of guilty to the offence charged I also find the conviction after the accused admitted the truth of the facts which were narrated and put to him proper. There is in my view no error or irregularity on the record of these proceedings to require a Revision order.
As for confirmation of sentence, a sentence of 2 months imprisonment clearly does not attract confirmation under section 167 of the MCA'70.
Section 233(3) of the MCA'70 requires a Chief Magistrate who in his supervisory power forward to the High Court a case file which in his opinion centains some errors or irregularities in the proceedings to sent such file with such remarks as he thinks fit to support his view.
. . . . . . . . . / 2
<sup>T</sup> TV he Ag. Chief Magistrate of Lira did not comply with the requirement of the above section when he forwarded the bundle of these files. I need remark that it is improper for <sup>a</sup> Chief Magistrate in his supervisory power to forward a file to this court without stating why he thinks the file contains errors on the records and therefore requires Revision Order.
tn this file I find that no Revision Order is necessary. The file should therefore be returned to the Magistrate's Court of Aloi for retention.
G. M. Okello
JUDGE. 14/3/90
fc
2-