[1991] UGHC 60
Although the trial magistrate did not strictly comply with section 122(2) of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1970 in recording the accused's plea, the error was cured by the accused's clear admission of the facts constituting the offence. However, the imposition of a six-month default sentence for non-payment of a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1991] UGHC 60
- Parties
- Accused: Martin Otwi; Prosecutor: Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 88 of 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Revision Order
- Outcome
- Default sentence set aside and substituted; conviction upheld.
- Judges
- GM OKELLO, J
- Legal Topics
- Plea Recording, Sentencing Illegality, Default Sentence, Magistrates Courts Act, Assault Bodily Harm
- 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
Martin Otwi
Accused
Uganda
Prosecutor
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Revision Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate properly recorded the accused's plea in accordance with section 122(2) of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1970.
- 2 Whether the default sentence of six months imprisonment for non-payment of a fine of shs.500/= is legal under section 192(d) of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1970 as amended.
Ratio Decidendi
Although the trial magistrate did not strictly comply with section 122(2) of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1970 in recording the accused's plea, the error was cured by the accused's clear admission of the facts constituting the offence. However, the imposition of a six-month default sentence for non-payment of a shs.500/= fine was illegal, as section 192(d) of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1970 as amended by Act 4 of 1985 limits the default sentence for such a fine to a maximum of seven days imprisonment. The court therefore set aside the illegal default sentence and substituted it with the lawful maximum of seven days imprisonment.
Court Disposition
Default sentence set aside and substituted; conviction upheld.
Orders
- The default sentence of six months imprisonment for non-payment of a fine of shs.500/= is set aside.
- A default sentence of seven days imprisonment is substituted in its place.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
## THE,REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH -COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CRIMINAL REVISION ORDER NO. 88/91
(ORIGINAL CRIMINAL NO. 103/88 AT ALOI)
MARTIN OTWI .... ... .................. . .... ...... . ACCUSED
## VERSUS
UGANDA. ........................................... PROSECUTOR BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice G. M. Okello.
## REVISION ORDER.
The accused in this case was charged with Assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 228 of the Penal Code Act\* He was convicted on his own plea and was subsequently sentenced to. a fine of shs.500/=, or in default to six months imprisonment. The record of the proceedings was sent to this court by the Chief Magistrate of Lira for a possible Revision Order. The same was placed before me.
On perusal of the record of the proceedings, I formed the view that the trial Magistrate did not comply with section 122(2) of the MCA'70 when he recorded the plea of the accused. This section enjoins a Magistrate before whom an accused person admits the substance of the charge against him, to record the admission of the accused as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused. In the instant case, the record shows that the plea was recorded thus.
"charge read 'and explained to the accused. Accused - pl<ea/guilty enterded."
This was followed by the narration of the facts which constituted the offence. The facts were -put to the accused who admitted the correctness thereof. -
The narrated facts are so clear that, they disclose the commission by the accused of the offence charged. As this is a simple and straight forward offence, the error in the taking of the plea is in my view cuyed by the accused's admission of the facts. In that case,
I am of the view that the conviction is proper and no injustice is occasioned.
$\overline{2}$
**SECTION AND VER CONTRACT**
As regards the sentence, the record shows that the trial Magistrate sentenced the accused to a fine of shs. $500/$ = or in default to 6 months imprisonment. This default sentence is in my view illegal as it contravenes section 192(d) of the MCA'70 as amended by Act 4 of 1985. Under this section the maximum default sentence for a fine which does not exceed shs.2000/= is seven days imprisonment.
When the relevant file was sent to the DPP for his view, Mr. George Bamugemereire a State Attorney, who wrote the opinion of the DPP in his letter ref. $6/4/2$ of $2/8/91$ shared the view that the default sentence of 6 months imprisonment for a fine of shs.500/= contravenes section 192(d) of the MCA'70 as amended by Act 4 of 1985. He did not wish to be heard in the event of a Revesion order being made.
For the reasons given above, the default sentence of 6 months imprisonment for a fine of shs.500/= is clearly illegal as it contravenes section 192(d) of the MCA'70 as amended by Act 4 of 1985. It is accordingly set aside and in its place it is substituted a defaul sentence of 7 days imprisonment.
$-7-$
G. M. Okello J U D G E $20/8/91.$
**THE CONNECT**