[1991] UGHC 47

## XJL , fTCt- ' ^dWorCc

THE EPU^LIC OF UGANDA IN "TIE GOURT 0? !?'G ND\*. AT KAMFLA CRIMINAL nEVJ3I0N QNDER NO, -107/91 (Original Kitgum Or\* Case No. JMK10/90

PICH'' RD ONEKA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ACCUSED VERSUS

U G A N D A :::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: : PROSECUTOR Before: The Hon. Er. Justice G. M. Okello

> 'ORDER:

The accused was charged with shopbreaking and theft contrary to sections 285(1) and 252 of the Penal Code Act. He pleaded guilty to the charge. This was followed by the narration of the facts which constituted the offence. These facts were put to the accused who admitted the truth thereof. The trial Magistrate later adjourned the proceedings for a judgment. He later wrote a judgment in which he convicted the accused as charged. Subsequently the accused who was a pupil of Padwong P.7 school in Kitgum District was sentenced to a corporal punishment of four strokes of the canes. Eleven days later -when medical report was received in court, the trial Magistrate changed the corporal sentence to a caution because no information was contrined in the medical Report showing whether or not the accused was fit to receive the corporal punishment

I was of the view that the caution was illegal e because it was made when the trial Magistrat/had already become functus- officio in the case. Secondly, it was an irregularity for the trial Magistrate to write a judgment where the accused person had unequivocally pleaded guilty to the charge. . . -

the relevant -file was sent to the DPP tor his view, Nandaula Be.tty a State Attorney who wrote bhe opinion for the D~P in her letter ref. 6/4/2 of 2J/8/91 was of the view that the trial Magistrate had. no power to'change the sentence as he had already become functio officio in the matter.

^M >

-1

■!

It is trite lav; that when, an accused person unequivocally pleads guilty to the charge, and admitts the facts vhich constitute the offence, the trial Magistrate must proceed to convict him without adjourning the case. It is also the law that where an accused person un-equivocally pleads guilty to a charge, there is no need for the trial Magistrate to write a judgment in the case. In such a case he must convict the accused and proceed to pass sentence after inquiring as to his antecedents and hearing from the accused in itigation.

See Uganda -vs- Kasanda (1978)1103 \$2\$,

Uganda -vs- Dick Obita and Anor. Cr. Rev.22/91

A trial Magistrate becomes functus officio in a case once he has closed the case by announcing a sentence or order therein. He can not thereafter re-open the case.

In LAPI AND 2 OTHERS -vs- Uganda MB 88/89 three appellants were sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. After sentence, two of them abused the trial Magistrate who retaliated by enhancing their sentence by an additional 6- months. On appeal to the High Court it was held that as soon as the trial Magistrate h^d convicted and sentenced the appellants, he had become functus officio and had no more jurisdiction to alter either the conviction or. the sentence.

In another ca&e of Uganda -vs- DENESI NYAKAIRA MB 90/66,

accused was convicted of theft, and was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment. Five minutes after the sentence had been passed, the accused was brought back before the same Magistrate and his previous convictions were read out. He admitted them. The Magistrate noted that the accused told him lies when he said that he had no previous conviction. On this ground the trial Magistrate altered the sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.

The case came up to this court for confimation of sentence and this court held that when a Magistrate had heard and determined a case by passing sentence he becomes functus officio in the matter. The sentence was not confirmed.

In yet another case of Kantipal Tanna vs. R. MB 28/63 the appellant had pleaded guilty to counts of forgery, uttering and subornation of purjury and had been convicted on each of those counts on his own pleas. Prior to sentence counsel for appellants sought to retract the plea of guilty on the third counts but the trial Magistrate refused and proceeded to sentence the appellant. Thereupon counsel for the appellant applied to retract the pleas of guilty on the 1st and 2nd counts but leave was refused.

On appeal to the High Court it was held that once sentence had been passed the trial Magistrate becomes functus officio in the matter and had no dicretion to allow the plea to be changed.

On the above principles the trial Magistrate in the instant case was wrong to have altered the corporal punishment to a caution because he had already became functus officio when he announced the corporal punishment. He thus had no jurisdiction to reopen the case. In the circumstances the sentence of caution is quashed.

I need to had that the conviction was proper because the plea was un-equivocal. $-1.0$ C. Okello JUDGE.