Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Uganda v John Peter Akiize (Revision Order No. 36/90) [1991] UGHC 78 (7 August 1991)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Penal Code Amendment Statute No. 5 of 1987, which increased the minimum sentence for offences under section 257 of the Penal Code Act to three years, came into force on 30 June 1987. John Peter Akiize was convicted and sentenced on 12 May 1987, prior to the commencement of the amendment. Therefore, the amended minimum sentence did not apply to his case. The trial magistrate acted within the law as it stood at the time, and the sentence of 18 months imprisonment was lawful. There was no illegality in the conviction or sentence, and no revision order was necessary.

Court disposition

no revision order necessary; conviction and sentence confirmed

Orders

  • No revision order is made.
  • File to be returned to Gulu Chief Magistrates Court for retention.

02

Material facts

Parties

Uganda

Applicant Counsel: Edward Wandera, State Attorney

John Peter Akiize

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Revision / Revision Order

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Chief Magistrate of Gulu and the DPP argued that the sentence of 18 months imprisonment was illegal because the Penal Code Amendment Statute No. 5 of 1987 set a minimum sentence of three years for offences under section 257 of the Penal Code Act. They contended that the imposed sentence was contrary to the amended law and sought a revision order.
Respondent
John Peter Akiize did not make submissions, but the record shows he pleaded guilty and was sentenced before the commencement date of the Penal Code Amendment Statute No. 5 of 1987. The trial magistrate had authority under the law as it stood at the time of conviction and sentencing.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Penal Code Act; Penal Code Amendment Statute No. 5 of 1987

    A statute does not operate retrospectively unless expressly stated; sentencing must be in accordance with the law in force at the time of conviction.

  2. 02

    Criminal Procedure principles

    The court must ensure that the conviction is proper and the plea unequivocal before confirming the sentence.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Penal Code Amendment Statute No. 5 of 1987, which increased the minimum sentence for offences under section 257 of the Penal Code Act to three years, came into force on 30 June 1987. John Peter Akiize was convicted and sentenced on 12 May 1987, prior to the commencement of the amendment. Therefore, the amended minimum sentence did not apply to his case. The trial magistrate acted within the law as it stood at the time, and the sentence of 18 months imprisonment was lawful. There was no illegality in the conviction or sentence, and no revision order was necessary.

Obiter and limits

  • The file is to be returned to Gulu Chief Magistrates Court for retention.
  • The plea upon which the conviction is based was unequivocal.

Court disposition

no revision order necessary; conviction and sentence confirmed

  • No revision order is made.
  • File to be returned to Gulu Chief Magistrates Court for retention.

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 78

The Hon. Mr. Justice F. M. S. Egond. Ntende

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA REVISION ORDER NO. $36/90$

PROSECUTOR :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: UGANDA

VERSUS

ACCUSED :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: JOHN PETER AKIIZE BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice G. M. Okello:

REVISION ORDER:

John Peter Akiize was employed in the public service as an Engineering Assistant. On or about the 7th day of March 1987 he was in charge of Water Development Section in Gulu. He was responsible for the keys to the store of that section.

He and three others were jointly charged with stealing by a person in the Public Service of various items from the store of Water Development section Gulu contrary to sections 252 and 257 of the Penal Code Act. John Peter Aklize pleaded guilty to the charge and he was convicted on his own plea. The other three accuseds pleaded not guilty to the charge. Hohn Peter Akiize was subsequently sentenced to 18 (Eighteen) months imprisonment.

The Chief Magistrate of Gulu forwarded the record of the proceeding in this file to this court for a possible revision order on the ground that the minimum sentence provided under the amendment to 257 of the Penal Code act is three years imprisonment. That the imposed sentence of 18 months imprisonment / militates against the amended section 257 of the Penal Code Act

and therefore illegal.

When the reord of theproceedings was sent to the DPP for his views, Edward Wandera a State Attorney who wrote the opinion of the DPP in his letter ref.6/4/2 of 18/7/91 shared the view of the Learned Chief Magistrate and did not wish to be heard in the event of a revisional order being made.

The Penal Code Amendment Statute $\text{No}_\bullet\text{5}$ of 1987 which came into effect on 30.6.87 stipulates the minimum sentence for offence under sections 257, 258, 258 A and 259 of the Penal Code Act to three years imprisonment but not exceeding 14 years.

Jchn Peter Akiize was convicted on his own plea of guilty of the offence under section 257 of the Penal Code Act on 12/5/87 and was sentenced as stated above. The conviction and sentence of this accused was clearly imposed before the Penal Code Amendment Statute No 5/87 came into force. The commencement date of the Statute is $30/6/87$ . It was thereforenot applicable to that case. The trial Magistrate therefore had authority to pass the sentence which he did.

As the conviction is proper, the plea upon which it is based being unequivocal,/the sentence being in accordance with the law, no revision order is found necessary. The file is to be returned to Gulu Chief Magistrates Court. for retention.

G. M. Okello

$\cdots \cdots$

JUDGE. $7/8/91.$

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.

Penal Code Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Penal Code Amendment Statute No. 5 of 1987

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.