[1991] UGHC 65
The trial magistrate's sentence, which gave the accused persons the option to serve a prison term or pay a fine, is illegal because Ugandan law does not provide for such an option. The law requires that a fine be imposed, with imprisonment as the default sentence in case of non-payment. The convictions were proper,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1991] UGHC 65
- Parties
- Respondent: Uganda; Accused: F. Dralon J. Clandi. Idi
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 50 of 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Order
- Outcome
- sentence varied; illegal sentence set aside and substituted
- Judges
- GM OKELLO, J
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Illegality, False Document, Altering Document, Default Sentence, Plea Conviction
- 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
Uganda
Respondent
F. Dralon J. Clandi. Idi
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence giving the accused an option to serve a prison term or pay a fine is lawful under Ugandan law.
- 2 What is the proper form of sentence for offences of making and altering false documents.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial magistrate's sentence, which gave the accused persons the option to serve a prison term or pay a fine, is illegal because Ugandan law does not provide for such an option. The law requires that a fine be imposed, with imprisonment as the default sentence in case of non-payment. The convictions were proper, as the pleas were unequivocal and supported by the facts. However, the sentences must be set aside and substituted with lawful sentences: a fine with imprisonment in default of payment.
Court Disposition
sentence varied; illegal sentence set aside and substituted
Orders
- Count 1: Each accused is sentenced to a fine of Shs. 3,000 or in default of payment, 1 month imprisonment.
- Count 2: Each accused is sentenced to a fine of Shs. 1,500 or in default, 7 days imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Vfc. P- M . Cr^cr^cLc'» - M-kkcM.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA
AT KAMPALA
## CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 50/91
UGANDA RESPONDANT
versus
F. Dralon J. Clandi. Idi . . . Accused
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. M, Okello.
## ORDER • : ——... '<sup>i</sup> <sup>7</sup>
Both accuseds in this case were charged and convicted on their own pleas in two CountsIn Count <sup>1</sup> they were convicted of altering false Document contrary to Section 330 of the Penal Code Act, • . In Count <sup>2</sup> they were convicted of making a false Document contrary to Section 32^ of the Penal Code Act. Subsquently they were sentenced as follows:-
In Count 1, they were each sentenced to either 12 months imprisonment or to a. fine of Shs.3000/-.
In Count 2, they were each sentenced to six months imprisonment or a fine of Shs.1500/-.
It was during my routine inspection of the monthly Criminal Case Return that I detected this somewhat unique sentence which gives to accuseds optiOn either to serve a prison sentence or to pay a fine. I then directed that the relevant case file be■called for my inspection. This was duly done and the same was placed before me.
On perusal I found that the convictions were proper because the pleas on which they were based are unequivocal and were supported ky the narrated facts. The narrated facts show that both Accuseds made what purported to be an 'O'Level exams Result slip purported e.../2
to have been signed by the Headmaster of Moyo Secondary School. Subsequently they & Atered the document at Police Recruitment. interview held at Moyo Police Station.
perusal also confirmed that the sentence imposed $Mv$ gave to the accused persons option to serve a prison sentence or to pay a fine. I was of the view that that type of sentence is illegal as it is not provided for under our Law as far as I know.
When the relevant case file was sent to the DPP for his views, Akampurira Micheal, a State Attorney who wrote for the DPP in his Letter ref. $6/4/2$ of 23/4/91, held the same view that the sentence which gives to an accused person an option either to a prison term or to pay a fine is illegal. A proper sentence showed impose a fine with a prison term in a default of payment of the fine.
As far as my research went, I have not come across any which sentence under our law/gives an accused person an option of either to serve a prison term or to pay a fine. This type of sentence is in my view illegal. Proper sentence is to impose on an accused a fine with a prison term as a default sentence.
On this ground the sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate giving to the accused persons option to serve a prison term on to pay a fine must be set aside as being illegal. In its pleas it is subsituted as follows:
Count 1: Each accused is sentenced to a fine of Shs. 3000/or in default of payment of the fine to 1month imprisonment. A.
$...$ /3
$-2$ $-$
Count *2:* Each accused is sentenced to a fine of Shs,1,500/ or in default to <sup>7</sup> days imprisonment.
G. M. Okello JUDGE
9/5/91