[1996] UGHC 35
The court found that although there was a clerical error in the commitment warrant, which stated a fine of shs 5,000 instead of the actual fine of shs 45,000 imposed by the magistrate, this error did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The maximum default sentence of 3 months imprisonment was correctly...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] UGHC 35
- Parties
- Applicant: Uganda; Respondent: Rose Kakeyo
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 22 of 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Order
- Outcome
- no revision order made; no further action necessary
- Judges
- GM OKELLO, J
- Legal Topics
- False Information, Public Service Offences, Sentencing Errors
- 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
Applicant
Rose Kakeyo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the commitment warrant accurately reflected the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate.
- 2 Whether the disparity between the fine stated in the court order and the commitment warrant caused a miscarriage of justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there was a clerical error in the commitment warrant, which stated a fine of shs 5,000 instead of the actual fine of shs 45,000 imposed by the magistrate, this error did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The maximum default sentence of 3 months imprisonment was correctly reflected. Since the error was merely a slip of the pen and did not affect the substance of the conviction or sentence, no further action or revision order was deemed necessary.
Court Disposition
no revision order made; no further action necessary
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA - HOLDEN AT GUIU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 22/93 (Original Criminal Case No. MM 244/91)
Uganda ............ versus ......., Rose Kakeyo. Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice G. M. Okello.
## $ORDER: -$
The accused in the above case was convicted of Giving False Information to A person Employed in the Public Service contrary to section 109 (a) of the Penal Code Act and was sentenced to a fine of shs. 45,000/= or in default to 3 months imprisonment. She was committed to prison in default of paying the fine.
The file was called for inspection. It was pubsequently placed before me. On perusal, I had no quarrel with the conviction and sentence. My concern however was aroused by the Commitment Warrant dated 21/2/92 by which the accused was committed to prison in default of paying the fine.
The Commitment Warrant indicated that the a cused was committed to 3 months imprisonment in default of paying the fine of $5,000/=$ . Yet the court order showed that the accused was, fined shs 45,000/=. This disparity had also aroused the concern of the State Attorney who wrote opinion for the DPP when opinion of the latter was sought. In her letter ref DPP/04/9 of 11th July 1995 the learned State Attorney said
> "After perusal of the court record, I find that firstly, the warrant of commitment.
on a sentence of Imprisonment does not tally with the sentence imposed by the magistrate. Whereas the magistrate sentenced the offender to a fine of $45,000/$ = or 3 months imprisonment under S. $192(d)$ of the MCA. the warrant of commitment on a sentence of imprisonment provides for a fine of only $5,000/=$ or 3 months imprisonment in default".
A Commitment Warrant must reflect the sentence actually imposed by the trial magistrate. In this case as the fine imposed was $45,000/$ , the maximum default sentence provided under section
$.../2...$
192 (d) of the M. C. A as amended by Act 4 of 1985 is rightly 3 months. That should have been reflected in the Commitment Warrant.
$-2-$
In the whole, no miscarriage of justice was caused by that slip of the pen. No further action is therefore deemed necessary in the matter. No revision order will thus be made.
> Butuno G. M. Okollo Resident Judge Gulu. $2/1/96$ .
◢
$\mathbf{1}$ $\boldsymbol{\Upsilon}$ $\mathcal{T}\mathrm{i}$ $W\mathring{I}.$ $W\mathcal{T}$ $\mathbf{S}\mathbf{O}$ $\texttt{St}_\mathfrak{l}$
$\tilde{\mathcal{A}}$
$\overline{\text{om}}$ $t h \varepsilon$ $10C$