Share
Uganda v Dralon & Another (Criminal Revision 50 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 65 (9 May 1991)
- Citation
- [1991] UGHC 65
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Criminal Revision 50 of 1991
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Criminal Revision 50 of 1991
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The trial magistrate's sentence, which gave the accused persons the option to serve a prison term or pay a fine, is illegal because Ugandan law does not provide for such an option. The law requires that a fine be imposed, with imprisonment as the default sentence in case of non-payment. The convictions were proper, as the pleas were unequivocal and supported by the facts. However, the sentences must be set aside and substituted with lawful sentences: a fine with imprisonment in default of payment.
Court disposition
sentence varied; illegal sentence set aside and substituted
Orders
- Count 1: Each accused is sentenced to a fine of Shs. 3,000 or in default of payment, 1 month imprisonment.
- Count 2: Each accused is sentenced to a fine of Shs. 1,500 or in default, 7 days imprisonment.
02
Material facts
Parties
Uganda
RespondentF. Dralon J. Clandi. Idi
AccusedAmounts and remedies
- Count 1 Fine Per Accused: UGX 3,000
- Count 2 Fine Per Accused: UGX 1,500
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence giving the accused an option to serve a prison term or pay a fine is lawful under Ugandan law.
- 02
What is the proper form of sentence for offences of making and altering false documents.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant did not formally argue, as the revision was initiated by the judge's own inspection. The judge noted the illegality of the sentence and sought the DPP's view.
- Respondent
- The DPP, through State Attorney Akampurira Micheal, agreed that the sentence giving an option between imprisonment and fine is illegal. The proper sentence should impose a fine with imprisonment in default of payment.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Penal Code Act, Sections 330 and 324
A sentence giving an accused the option to serve a prison term or pay a fine is not provided for under Ugandan law.
- 02
Penal Code Act; judicial practice
The proper sentence is to impose a fine with a prison term as a default sentence for non-payment.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The trial magistrate's sentence, which gave the accused persons the option to serve a prison term or pay a fine, is illegal because Ugandan law does not provide for such an option. The law requires that a fine be imposed, with imprisonment as the default sentence in case of non-payment. The convictions were proper, as the pleas were unequivocal and supported by the facts. However, the sentences must be set aside and substituted with lawful sentences: a fine with imprisonment in default of payment.
Obiter and limits
- Routine judicial inspection can reveal procedural or substantive errors in sentencing.
- Sentences must strictly comply with statutory provisions and established judicial practice.
Court disposition
sentence varied; illegal sentence set aside and substituted
- Count 1: Each accused is sentenced to a fine of Shs. 3,000 or in default of payment, 1 month imprisonment.
- Count 2: Each accused is sentenced to a fine of Shs. 1,500 or in default, 7 days imprisonment.
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
Vfc. P- M . Cr^cr^cLc'» - M-kkcM.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA
AT KAMPALA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 50/91
UGANDA RESPONDANT
versus
F. Dralon J. Clandi. Idi . . . Accused
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. M, Okello.
ORDER • : ——... '<sup>i</sup> <sup>7</sup>
Both accuseds in this case were charged and convicted on their own pleas in two CountsIn Count <sup>1</sup> they were convicted of altering false Document contrary to Section 330 of the Penal Code Act, • . In Count <sup>2</sup> they were convicted of making a false Document contrary to Section 32^ of the Penal Code Act. Subsquently they were sentenced as follows:-
In Count 1, they were each sentenced to either 12 months imprisonment or to a. fine of Shs.3000/-.
In Count 2, they were each sentenced to six months imprisonment or a fine of Shs.1500/-.
It was during my routine inspection of the monthly Criminal Case Return that I detected this somewhat unique sentence which gives to accuseds optiOn either to serve a prison sentence or to pay a fine. I then directed that the relevant case file be■called for my inspection. This was duly done and the same was placed before me.
On perusal I found that the convictions were proper because the pleas on which they were based are unequivocal and were supported ky the narrated facts. The narrated facts show that both Accuseds made what purported to be an 'O'Level exams Result slip purported e.../2
to have been signed by the Headmaster of Moyo Secondary School. Subsequently they & Atered the document at Police Recruitment. interview held at Moyo Police Station.
perusal also confirmed that the sentence imposed $Mv$ gave to the accused persons option to serve a prison sentence or to pay a fine. I was of the view that that type of sentence is illegal as it is not provided for under our Law as far as I know.
When the relevant case file was sent to the DPP for his views, Akampurira Micheal, a State Attorney who wrote for the DPP in his Letter ref. $6/4/2$ of 23/4/91, held the same view that the sentence which gives to an accused person an option either to a prison term or to pay a fine is illegal. A proper sentence showed impose a fine with a prison term in a default of payment of the fine.
As far as my research went, I have not come across any which sentence under our law/gives an accused person an option of either to serve a prison term or to pay a fine. This type of sentence is in my view illegal. Proper sentence is to impose on an accused a fine with a prison term as a default sentence.
On this ground the sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate giving to the accused persons option to serve a prison term on to pay a fine must be set aside as being illegal. In its pleas it is subsituted as follows:
Count 1: Each accused is sentenced to a fine of Shs. 3000/or in default of payment of the fine to 1month imprisonment. A.
$...$ /3
$-2$ $-$
Count *2:* Each accused is sentenced to a fine of Shs,1,500/ or in default to <sup>7</sup> days imprisonment.
G. M. Okello JUDGE
9/5/91
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.