Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Uganda v Acen & Another (Criminal Revision 93 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 62 (30 August 1991)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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

Applicant

Phoebe Acen

Respondent

Joel Opio

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Fine Imposed on Each Accused: UGX 200

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Revision / Revision Order

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court of Uganda

Judgment

[1991] UGHC 62

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.

$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{H}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{H}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{H}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{H}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{H}}$

$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}}$

$\frac{1}{2} < \frac{1}{2}$

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Section 228 Penal Code Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 192(d) Magistrates Courts Act 1970 as amended by Act 4 of 1985

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.