Share
Okeny & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Revision 28 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 64 (3 May 1991)
- Citation
- [1991] UGHC 64
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Criminal Revision 28 of 1991
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Criminal Revision 28 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 the plea of guilty entered by the accused was equivocal as it did not admit all the essential ingredients of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The accused admitted to assault but not to causing actual bodily harm, making the conviction unsound in law. Furthermore, the charge was bad for duplicity as it alleged assault on multiple persons in a single count, contrary to statutory requirements that each offence be charged separately. The default sentence of one month imprisonment for non-payment of a fine of Shs. 2000/= was also illegal, as the law prescribes a maximum of seven days imprisonment for such a fine. Consequently, both the conviction and sentence were quashed, and any fine paid was ordered to be refunded.
Court disposition
Conviction and sentence quashed; any fine paid to be refunded.
Orders
- The conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm is quashed.
- The sentence of a fine of Shs. 2000/= or one month imprisonment in default is set aside.
- Any payment made by the accused as fine in this regard should be refunded forthwith.
02
Material facts
Parties
Okeny Justine
AccusedUganda
Respondent Counsel: Mauroen Owor (State Attorney for DPP)Amounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed: UGX 2,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Revision Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plea of guilty entered by the accused was unequivocal and admitted all essential ingredients of the offence.
- 02
Whether the charge was bad for duplicity by alleging assault on multiple persons in a single count.
- 03
Whether the default sentence imposed for non-payment of the fine was legal under the applicable statute.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Chief Magistrate referred the case for revision, arguing that the plea of guilty was equivocal and did not admit all essential elements of the offence. It was also argued that the default sentence of one month imprisonment for a fine of Shs. 2000/= was illegal under section 192(d) of the MCA as amended. The charge was further challenged as being bad for duplicity for alleging assault on multiple persons in a single count.
- Respondent
- The State Attorney for the DPP concurred with the Chief Magistrate, agreeing that the plea was equivocal and the conviction bad in law. The State Attorney also agreed that the charge was bad for duplicity and did not wish to be heard further if a revision order was to be made.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
ADAN v Republic (1973) EA 445
A conviction based on a plea of guilty must unequivocally admit all essential ingredients of the offence.
- 02
Section 84(2) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1970; Mwaitigo v R (1961) EA 470; Uganda v Patiriso Efceu IJB. 71/65
A charge is bad for duplicity if it alleges more than one offence in a single count; each offence must be set out in a separate count.
- 03
Section 192(d) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1970 as amended by Act 4 of 1985
The maximum default sentence for a fine not exceeding Shs. 2000/= is seven days imprisonment.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the plea of guilty entered by the accused was equivocal as it did not admit all the essential ingredients of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The accused admitted to assault but not to causing actual bodily harm, making the conviction unsound in law. Furthermore, the charge was bad for duplicity as it alleged assault on multiple persons in a single count, contrary to statutory requirements that each offence be charged separately. The default sentence of one month imprisonment for non-payment of a fine of Shs. 2000/= was also illegal, as the law prescribes a maximum of seven days imprisonment for such a fine. Consequently, both the conviction and sentence were quashed, and any fine paid was ordered to be refunded.
Obiter and limits
- A plea must admit all essential elements of the offence to be unequivocal.
- Charges alleging offences against multiple persons must be separated into distinct counts to avoid duplicity.
- Sentences imposed in default of fine payment must strictly comply with statutory limits.
Court disposition
Conviction and sentence quashed; any fine paid to be refunded.
- The conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm is quashed.
- The sentence of a fine of Shs. 2000/= or one month imprisonment in default is set aside.
- Any payment made by the accused as fine in this regard should be refunded forthwith.
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
The Hon. Mr. Justice F. M. S. Enganda Altoule
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CRIMINAL REVISION ORDER NO. 28/91
OKENY JUSTINE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ACCUSED & 2 OTHERS VERSUS UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: BEFORE: The Hon, Mr. Justice G. M. Okello:
REVISIONTORDER:
The Accused and two others were jointly charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 228 of the Penal Code Act. They were alleged to have jointly assaulted LamtonOkwir and others not named and that they thereby caused the victims actual bodily harm contrary to section 228 of the Penal Code Act.
The accused Okeny Justine pleaded guilty to the charge and he was convicted on his own plea. The other two accuseds pleaded not guilty and the charge against them was withdrawn under section 119(a) of the MCA'70. Okeny Justine was subsequently sentenced to a fine of Shs. 2000/= cr to one month imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.
The Chief Magistrate of Gulu forwarded the relevant case file to this court for a possible revision order on the ground that the conviction is bad in law because the plea on which it is based is equivocal. Secondly that the default sentence of one month for a fine of Shs. 2000/= is illegal as it violates section 192(d) of the NCA'70 as amended by Act 4 of 1985. The file was placed before me.
In order for a conviction to be properly based on a plea of guilty, the plea must unequivocally admit all the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. Authority for this proposition is ADAN -vs- REPUBLIC (1973) EA 445.
In the instant case, the plea on which the conviction was based is recorded thus:
........../2
"Yes I assaulted Lumton Okwir and Others. I know I did wrong."
The above plea is clearly equivocal as to the charge of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section <sup>228</sup> of the Penal %de Act, It dees not admit all the essential ingrddients of the' offence charged.
- <sup>2</sup> -
g
A
When the filo was sent to the DPP for his views, Mauroen Owor a state attorney writing for the DgP, expressed the view that the plea was equivocal and that the resultant conviction is bad in law. She raised the point of the charge as being bad for duplicity because it refers to assault on others as well in. the same count. The learned state Attorney did not wish to be heard in the event of a revisiona/ordor being made. 1/
I fully agree with the learned Chief Magistrate that bho plea dm which the accused was convicted us equivocal. It does not admit causing the victim. actual bodily harm. It only admits assaulting them. In the premises the resulant conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm is bad in law. It is accordingly quashed.
The charge is clearly bad for duplicity. Section 84(2) of the MCA'<sup>70</sup> demands that where more than one offence is alleged in a charge, a description of each offence so charged must be set out in a separate paragraph of the charge called a count,. For further authority see Mwaitigo -v~ R( <sup>19</sup><sup>61</sup> EA 470.•
In Uganda v Patiriso Efceu IjB. 71/65 the court found duplicity in a charge alleging in a single count that the accused had obtained credit by fraud C/S 292 of the Penal Code from four different persons at different times. Such instance of obtaining should have been alleged in separate count.
In the instant ca.se, allegations were made in single count of assault on three different persons causing each one of them actual bodily harm. On the principle stated above, this is bad for duplicity. Assault on each person snould have been alleged in a separate count. This is a ground sufficient to quash the conviction•
The accused was sentence to a fine of Shs.2000/= or in default to one month imprisonment. This default sentence is clearly illegal. Section 192(d) of the MCA\* 70 as amended by Act 4 of 1985 sets the maximum default sentence
for a fine of not exceeding 2000/= to only <sup>7</sup> days imprisonment.. Imposing a default sentence of one pjonth imprisonment for a fine of Shs\*2000/= is clearly illegal\* As the conviction is quashed on othe ground of illegality, the resultant sentence must also be set aside\* So it is ordered\*
Order ;
In case any payment is made by the accused as fine in this regard, it should be refunded forthwith\*
CT. Okello
JUDGE\* 3/5/91
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.