Laze v Uganda (Criminal Revision Order 14/91) [1991] UGHC 82 (30 August 1991)

Full Case Text

## THE REPUBLIC CF UGANDA

## IN the CHIEF MAGISTRATES\*S COURT nF ARUA

## CRIMINAL REVISION ORDER 1A/91.

LAZE ACCUSED

VERSUS

Uganda ::::::::::::::::: PROSECUTOR

BEFORE! THE HON. MR, JUSTICE G,M. OKELLO

## REVISION ORDER:

The Accused was charged with and convicted on his own plea of guilty of traffic offences in two counts under the traffic and Road safety Act 1970\* In count 1, he was charged with and convicted of causing death by careless use of a motor vehicle contrary to sections 117 and 1J8 <2) (b) of the Traffic and Road safety Act 1970. He was sentenced to *y/z* years imprisonment with a fine of 5000/= in this couftt.

In count 2, he was charged with and convicted of driving a motor vehicle without a valid driving permit contrary to sections 128 (a) and 158 (2) (e) of the Traffic and Road safety Act 1970. He was **sentenced** to six months imprisonment. He was a first offender.

I was of the view that the sentence of 3/2 years imprisonment in count 1 above is illegal as it contravens section 158 (2) (b) of the Traffic and Road safety Hct 1970. Under this section sentence of imprisonment is not to be less than six months hut not to exceed two years **imprisonment** Secondly a fine of 5000/= is the maximum allowed by section 158 (2) (b). of the Traffic and ^oad safety Act 1970. The established practice is not to award maximum sentence on a first offender unless the circumstances of the case demands it. No such circumstances have been shown here. Thirdly no order was made as to whether the sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently on consecutively. In practice sentences in two or more offences which arise from sanje transaction do not attract an order

to run consecutively, such sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

In R V Sewedi Mukasa (1946) 13 EACA 97, it was held that concurrent sentences should be ordered for offences committed in the course of some $...$ transaction.

When the relevant file was sent to the D. P. P. for his views, Maureen Owor a state Attormey who wrote the view for the DPP in her letter Ref: $6/4/2$ of $31/7/91$ agreed with the above views and did not wish to be heard in the event of a revision order being made.

The pleas on which the accused was convicted were recorded as follows:-

Countil "I understand the charge in count 1 and I did drive reclessly causing death of the victim".

Coust? \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

In my view the above pleas are clearly unequivocal to the respective charres in counts 1 and 2. Hence the convictions are proper. Moreover the narrated facts reveal the commission of the offences charged.

However the sentence of 3% years imprisonment in count 1 is illegal as shown above. It is accordingly set aside and in its place it is substituted a sentence of 1% years imprisonment. The fine of $5000/$ shall not be disturbed. The sontences of imprisonment in count 1 and in count 2 are to run concurrently. The effect is that the accused should new be released forthwith,

G. M. CKELLO JUDGE.

30/8/91