Share
Uganda v Acen & Another (Criminal Revision 93 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 62 (30 August 1991)
- Citation
- [1991] UGHC 62
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Criminal Revision 93 of 1991
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Criminal Revision 93 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 convictions of the accused, Phoebe Acen and Joel Opio, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm were proper as the pleas of guilty were unequivocal and the facts supported the charges. However, the default sentence of six weeks imprisonment imposed for failure to pay a fine of shs. 200/= was illegal, as section 192(d) of the Magistrates Courts Act (as amended) limits the maximum default sentence for such a fine to 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 revised; convictions upheld.
Orders
- The default sentence of six weeks imprisonment for non-payment of the fine is set aside.
- A default sentence of 7 days imprisonment is substituted in place of the previous sentence.
- Convictions based on the pleas of guilty are confirmed as proper.
02
Material facts
Parties
Uganda
ApplicantPhoebe Acen
RespondentJoel Opio
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed on Each Accused: UGX 200
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Revision Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the default sentence of six weeks imprisonment for failure to pay 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 accused's pleas of guilty were proper.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Director of Public Prosecutions, through State Attorney George Bamugamureirwe, agreed that the default sentence of six weeks imprisonment for a fine of shs. 200/= was illegal under section 192(d) of the Magistrates Courts Act as amended by Act 4 of 1985. He did not wish to be heard further in the event of a revision order being made.
- Respondent
- The accused did not make further submissions; their pleas of guilty were unequivocal and admitted the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 192(d) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1970 as amended by Act 4 of 1985.
A default sentence for non-payment of a fine not exceeding shs. 2000/= must not exceed 7 days imprisonment.
- 02
Penal Code Act, section 228; general criminal procedure principles.
A conviction based on an unequivocal plea of guilty is proper and lawful.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the convictions of the accused, Phoebe Acen and Joel Opio, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm were proper as the pleas of guilty were unequivocal and the facts supported the charges. However, the default sentence of six weeks imprisonment imposed for failure to pay a fine of shs. 200/= was illegal, as section 192(d) of the Magistrates Courts Act (as amended) limits the maximum default sentence for such a fine to 7 days imprisonment. The court therefore set aside the illegal default sentence and substituted it with the lawful maximum of 7 days imprisonment.
Obiter and limits
- The facts narrated after the plea of guilty revealed the commission of the offence charged, confirming the propriety of the convictions.
- The DPP's concurrence with the court's view on the illegality of the default sentence reinforced the need for revision.
Court disposition
Default sentence revised; convictions upheld.
- The default sentence of six weeks imprisonment for non-payment of the fine is set aside.
- A default sentence of 7 days imprisonment is substituted in place of the previous sentence.
- Convictions based on the pleas of guilty are confirmed as proper.
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 REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CRIMINAL REVISION ORDER NO. 93/91 de 100 mais (ORIGINAL CR. CASE NO. 85/88 AT ALOI) 86/88 UGANDA. PROSECUTOR $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\circ$ $\circ$ $\bullet$ $\bullet$ $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}$ VERSUS.
The File
.. tof
ACCUSED PHOEBE ACEN .................................... $\cdots$ AND JOEL OPIO icfo: $\mathbf{A}$
REVISION ORDER
The accused in the above cases were convicted on their own pleas of guilty of assault occasioning actual bodidly harm $c/s$ 228 of the PCA. Subsequently they were each sentenced to a fine of shs. $200/$ = or to six weeks imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.
On personal of the record of the proceedings, in those cases, I was satisfied that the convictions in both files were proper, because the pleas upon which they are based were unequivocal. I am however of the view that the default sentence of six weeks for a fine of shs. $200/$ = is illegal as it violates section 192(d) of the MCA'70 as amended by Act 4 of 1985.
When the relevant files were sent to the DPP for his views, George Bamugamureirwe a State Attorney who wrote the opinion for the DPP in his letter ref. $6/4/2$ of 3st July 1991 shared the view that the default sentence was illegal and did not wish to be heard in the event of a revision order being made.
The plea on which the accused were convicted were recorded $as;$
"I admit the charge. It is true that I assaulted the complainant and caused her bodily harm"
The above plea is clearly <sup>a</sup>n unequivocal plea of guilty to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm c/s 228 of the Penal Code Act. The facts which were narrated after the plea
$\ldots 12 \ldots$
of guilty was entered reveal the commission of the offence charged. The convictions are therefore proper.
$\mathbf{2}$
The default sentence of 6 weeks imprisonment for a fine of $200/$ = is however illegal because it violates section 192(d) of the MCA'70 as amended by Act 4 of 1985. This section stipulates that for a fine of not exceeding shs.2000/= the maximum default sentence shall be 7 days imprisonment. Accordingly a default sentence of 6 weeks imprisonment for a fine of shs $200/$ = clearly violates this section. For that reason the default sentence of 6 weeks imprisonment is set aside and in its place it is substituted a default sentence of 7 days imprisonment.
コロエオル 日本語
$-1$ $113$ .
$\mathbb{E} \left[ \mathcal{M}^{\mathbb{C}} / \mathbb{R} \right] \text{ or } \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathcal{M}^{\mathbb{C}} / \mathbb{R} \right] \rightarrow \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathcal{M}^{\mathbb{C}} / \mathbb{R} \right]$
$\ldots$ $\ldots$
$\cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$
rigo enti são m
一个 【中国》 【一
$\frac{J \cdot U \cdot D \cdot G \cdot E}{30/8/91}$
$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}}$
the first of a subset of the first
$\begin{array}{ccccccccc} \partial_M \partial_\mu \Gamma & \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_M & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu & \partial_\mu \partial_\mu$
计独立性性 一些 地 深 地 不
$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc} \end{array}$
$\mu = \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right) \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right) \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right) \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right) \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right) \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right) \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right) \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{$
$\frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} = \frac{1}{1.31} =$
all the real party.
$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{H}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{H}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{H}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{H}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{H}}$
$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}}$
$\frac{1}{2} < \frac{1}{2}$
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.