[1996] UGHC 31
The court found that although there was a disparity between the sentence imposed and the commitment warrant, this was a clerical error ('slip of the pen') and did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as the default sentence was correctly stated. However, the trial magistrate failed to comply with section 193 of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] UGHC 31
- Parties
- Applicant: Uganda; Respondent: Margaret Tarakwe
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 27 of 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Order
- Outcome
- No further action taken; directions for future compliance issued.
- Judges
- GM OKELLO, J
- Legal Topics
- Assault Occasions Actual Bodily Harm, Sentencing Disparity, Commitment Warrant, Fine Payment Procedure
- 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
Margaret Tarakwe
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the disparity between the sentence imposed and the commitment warrant constituted a miscarriage of justice.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate complied with section 193 of the Magistrates Courts Act regarding time allowed for payment of fines.
- 3 Whether immediate committal to prison without allowing time to pay the fine was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there was a disparity between the sentence imposed and the commitment warrant, this was a clerical error ('slip of the pen') and did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as the default sentence was correctly stated. However, the trial magistrate failed to comply with section 193 of the Magistrates Courts Act by not allowing the accused time to pay the fine and not stating reasons for immediate committal. The court emphasized that this statutory requirement is mandatory and intended to afford the accused an opportunity to pay the fine, with imprisonment in default as a last resort. Since the accused had already served the default sentence, no further action...
Court Disposition
No further action taken; directions for future compliance issued.
Orders
- No further action to be taken in this matter.
- Magistrates are directed to comply with section 193 of the Magistrates Courts Act in future cases.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
## THE REPUBLIC OP UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OP UGANDA - HOLDEN AT GULU CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 27/53
(Original Cr, Case No, MM 224 of 1991) Uganda versus Margaret Tarakwe. Before: The Honourable Mr, Justice G,M« Okello,
ORDER: -
The accused was convicted on her own pl-ea of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 228 of the P. C. A. She was subsequently sentenced to a fine of shs. 14,000/= or in default to <sup>6</sup> weeks imprisonment. She was on the date of her sentence committed to prison for <sup>6</sup> weeks.
The file was apparently called for inspection and was subsequently placed before me. On perusal, I found that though the plea of "I admit it" upon which the accused was convicted was vague, it could be cured by the narrated facts which corr-o-otoese the accused admitted. The facts revealed the commission of the offence charged, I therefore had no problem with the conviction I also had no problem with 'the sentence as it is within the law.
However, my concern is about the commitment warrant by which the accused was committed to prison in default of payment of the fine. The Commitment Warrant is to reflect the sentence imposed by the court.
In the instant case, the Commitment Warrant was in disparity with he sentence actually imposed by the trial Magistrate. Whereas the court ordered the accused to a fine of 14,000/= or in default to imprisonment of <sup>6</sup> weeks, the Commitment Warrant indicated that the accused was,
"sentenced to a fine of shs. 4,OOo/= or <sup>6</sup> weeks imprisonment in default (fine not paid)",
Sheila Nkwasibwe, the State Attorney who wrote the opinion for the DPP when the latter'<sup>s</sup> opinion was sought expressed concern
in a letter ref $DPP/04/9$ of $11/7/95$ that "The warrant of commitment on sentence of imprisonment therefore does not tally with the sentence".
Commitment Warrants are clearly to tally with the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate. I take this disparity as a "slip of the pen" because the Commitment Warrant stated correctly the default sentence imposed by the trial magistrate. That "slip of the pen" therefore did not cause any miscarriage of justice.
The State Attorney who wrote the opinion for the DPP further expressed concern over the failure of the trial magistrate to comply with section 193 of the MCA. This section requires the court on imposing a sentence of a fine, to allow the accused at least thirty days within which to pay the fine. Where court ordered immodiate committed in default of payment of the fine. sub-section 2 of this section requires the Commitment Warrant to reflect reasons justifying the immediate committal.
In the instant case, the accused was not allowed time within which to pay the fine as required by law nor did the Commitment Warrant -reflect any reason to justify the immediate committal. That section is mandatory. The general theme of that section is to afford an accused opportunity to pay the fine so imposed even by instalment if necessary. Imprisonment in default should be as the last resort when it become clear that the accused could not pay the fine.
The Commitment in this case was issued on 29/10/91 and there is no doubt that the accused must have now served the full default sentence of six weeks. That fault can not now be reversed It is important however, that the relevant Magistrate should in future have regard to this section when dealing with a similar case. This also applies to Cr. Revision No. 22/93 where the same magistrate also failed to comply with section 193 of the MCA.
No further action would now be taken.
Buikuo G. M. Okello Resident Judge Gulu. $2/1/96.$
$2 -$