Otwi v Uganda (Criminal Revision 88 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 60 (20 August 1991)

## 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**