Uganda v Obita and Another (Revision Order 22 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 49 (6 May 1991)

Full Case Text

| Nv -A VW. ■Mo. , | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | REPUBLIC THE OF UGANDA IN HIGH THE OF COURT AT KAMPALA UGANDA | | | NO.22/91 REVISION ORDER | | | NO. MK.316/8?) (ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE | | | I::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::: UGANDA | PROSECUTOR | | VERSUS | | | (1) DICK OBITA J i:::::::: | | | ::::::: 2:::::::::: : (2) I ROSE ADOCH | ACCUSEDS | | Justice Okello: Hon. Mr. G. M. The BEFORE: | |

The two accuseds were charged with Adultery contrary to section 1^5OA(1) and 1?OA(2) of the Penal Code Act respectively. They both pleaded guilty and were convicted as charged. Subsequently A1 was sentenced to a caution. No mandatory order as to compensation of 600/= to be paid by A1 to the aggrieved Party was made.

The Chief Magistrate of the area forwarded the relevant case ' file to this court for a possible revisional order.. He argued that the record of the proceedings shows that' the trial Magistrate was coerred into passing the sentence as he did. That the sentence as passed by the timorous Magistrate is wrong in principle and that it should not be allowed to stand..

When the file, was sent to the DPP for his views Maureen Owor a State Attorney writing for the DPP expressed the view that it was wrong to remand an accused person who pleaded guilty for sentence without first entering a conviction. That the trial Magistrate erred i in failing to make the mandatory order for the male accused charged

......................./2

under section 150/i( l^of^he Penal Code Act to pay compensation of Shs^6OQ/<="'to the aggrie-ved Party. Further that the trial Magistrate who sentenced A1 to a.^ca-ution did not follow the principle » as laid down in'^soction 202.(1.) (b) of the MCA'70. That the trial Magistrate appeared to heve been influenced by a threat from a Minister\* That this is wrong. The learned. 'State Attorney did not wish to be heard in the event of a Regisional Order being madre'\*'

Section 122(2) of. the MCA'70 lays down the Procedure to be followed where an accused pleads guilty to a charge\* A trial Magistrate is to explain to accused the substance of the charge and to record as nearly as possible the admission of the accused. If the admission covers all the essential ingredients of the offence alleged, a plea of guilty mUQ^ be entered. The practice is that this should be followed by the narration of the brief facts of the case\* These facts Should be put toethe accused to admit or deny the truth thereof. If he admits the correctness of the facts and if these facts show the commission ( of the offence alleged, the accused must be convicted. No judgment is required to be written where' an accused, pleads guilty.

Indeed it was he^Ld in Uganda -v- Kasanda (1978) HCB 323 that it is • wrong for a trial Magistrate to remand an accused who pleaded guilty, for sentence without first entering a conviction. Secondly, that there is no need for a judgment after a plea of guilty. It is therefore wrong for a Magistrate to write one in such circumstance\* Judgment is only written after a trial.

........ /3

In Uganda -»v- Kasonda (1978) HCB 32? Allen J.as he then was quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence on the ground inter alia that the accused was unfairly deprived of his right to speak in mitigation.

For the reasons given above, it is clear that injustice was caused to the accused by the illegal conviction\* The conviction is accordingly quashed.

Section 192(d) of the MCA'70 as amended by Act 4 of 1985 prescribes the maximum default sentence for a fine exceeding 2000/= but not exceeding 10,000/= to only one month imprisonment.

In the instant case the accused was sentenced to a fine of . Shs.3>000/= anl in default to 12 months imprisonment. Clearly the default sentence of 12 months imprisonment for a fine of Shs.3?000/= is illegal having regards to the ;b.vo section. Since the conviction from which the sentence flowed has been quashed so the sentence is set aside.

ORDER:

In case payment has been made by the accused as fine, it should be refunded to him forthwith.

G. M. Okello

JUDGE 6/5/91