Share
Ayo v Uganda (Civil Revision 99 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 54 (3 September 1991)
- Citation
- [1991] UGHC 54
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Civil Revision 99 of 1991
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Civil Revision 99 of 1991
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that while the convictions of the accused were proper, being based on unequivocal pleas of guilty and supported by the facts, the default sentence of 6 weeks imprisonment imposed in default of payment of a fine of Shs.200/= was illegal. Section 192(d) of the Magistrates Courts Act, as amended by Act 4 of 1985, limits the default sentence for a fine not exceeding Shs.2000/= to only 7 days imprisonment. The court, therefore, set aside the illegal default sentence and substituted it with the lawful maximum of 7 days imprisonment.
Court disposition
Default sentence set aside and substituted with lawful sentence; convictions upheld.
Orders
- The default sentence of 6 weeks imprisonment is set aside.
- A default sentence of 7 days imprisonment is substituted in its place.
02
Material facts
Parties
Ayo s/o @Derosalim Awio
AccusedUganda
Respondent Counsel: Edward WanderaAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed Per Accused: UGX 200
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Revision Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the default sentence of 6 weeks imprisonment for non-payment of a fine of Shs.200/= is legal under section 192(d) of the Magistrates Courts Act as amended.
- 02
Whether the convictions based on the accuseds' pleas of guilty were proper.
Party arguments
- Respondent
- The DPP, through State Attorney Edward Wandera, opined that the default sentence of 6 weeks imprisonment for a fine of Shs.200/= is illegal as it violates section 192(d) of the Magistrates Courts Act as amended by Act 4 of 1985, and did not wish to be heard further if a revisional order was made.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 192(d) of the Magistrates Courts Act as amended by Act 4 of 1985.
A default sentence for a fine of not more than Shs.2000/= must not exceed 7 days imprisonment.
- 02
General criminal procedure principles.
Convictions based on unequivocal pleas of guilty supported by facts are proper.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that while the convictions of the accused were proper, being based on unequivocal pleas of guilty and supported by the facts, the default sentence of 6 weeks imprisonment imposed in default of payment of a fine of Shs.200/= was illegal. Section 192(d) of the Magistrates Courts Act, as amended by Act 4 of 1985, limits the default sentence for a fine not exceeding Shs.2000/= to only 7 days imprisonment. The court, therefore, set aside the illegal default sentence and substituted it with the lawful maximum of 7 days imprisonment.
Court disposition
Default sentence set aside and substituted with lawful sentence; convictions upheld.
- The default sentence of 6 weeks imprisonment is set aside.
- A default sentence of 7 days imprisonment is substituted in its place.
Source and reliance status
High Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court of Uganda
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMFALA
The Hon. Mr. Justice A. R. Soluade THE REFUBLIC OF UGANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION ORDER NO. 99/91
AYO S/O @DEROSALIM AWIO :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ACCUSED
VERSUS
UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice G. M. Okello:
REVISION ORDER:
The accuseds were jointly charged with and were convicted on their own pleas of guilty of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 228 of the Penal Code Act. Subsequently they were each sentenced to a fine of Shs.200/= or to 6 weeks imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.
The pleas on which they were convicted were recorded as follows:
- "I admit the charge. I assaulted Jacob Odongo and caused $A1:$ him bodily harm" - "I admit the charge. It is true that I assaulted Jacob $A2:$ Odongo and caused him bodily harn"
The abowe was followed by the narration of facts which reveal assault on the complainant by the two accused. The complainant sustained some bodily injuries following the assault.
$\textbf{F}^{\text{T}}\text{om}$ the above, I am satisfied that the convictions are proper as the pleas are clearly unequivocal and are supported by the natrated fact. I am between of the view that the default sentence is illegal as it violates section 192(d) of the MCA'70 as amended by Act 4 of $1985$ . This section stipulates the default sentence for a fine of not more than Shs. 2000/= to only 7 days imprisonment.
When the relevant file was sent to the DPP for his views, Edward. Wandera a state Attorney who wrote- tho opinion for the DPP in his letter ref: 6/4/2 of 24/7/91, expressed the view that the -default sentence of <sup>6</sup> weeks imprisonment for a fine of Shs\*200/= is illegal as it violates section 192(d) of the MCA'TO as amended by Act <sup>4</sup> of 1985 and he did not wish to heard in the event of a revisonal -order being made®
Clearly the default sentence is illegal as shown above\* Such an illegal sentence can not be allowed to stand\* It is thus set aside and in its place is substituted a default sentence of 7 days imprisonment.
JUDGE: 3/9/91
2
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.