Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Uganda v Kakayo (Criminal Revision 22 of 1993) [1996] UGHC 35 (2 January 1996)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that although there was a clerical error in the commitment warrant, which stated a fine of shs 5,000 instead of the actual fine of shs 45,000 imposed by the magistrate, this error did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The maximum default sentence of 3 months imprisonment was correctly reflected. Since the error was merely a slip of the pen and did not affect the substance of the conviction or sentence, no further action or revision order was deemed necessary.

Court disposition

no revision order made; no further action necessary

02

Material facts

Parties

Uganda

Applicant

Rose Kakeyo

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Fine Imposed: UGX 45,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Revision / Order

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The State Attorney noted that the commitment warrant did not tally with the sentence imposed by the magistrate. The magistrate sentenced the offender to a fine of shs 45,000 or 3 months imprisonment, but the warrant reflected a fine of shs 5,000 or 3 months imprisonment in default. The State Attorney emphasized that the warrant must reflect the actual sentence imposed.
Respondent
No formal argument from the respondent is recorded in the order. The court considered the record and the State Attorney's opinion.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

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

    A commitment warrant must accurately reflect the sentence imposed by the trial court.

  2. 02

    General principles of criminal procedure

    A clerical error in the commitment warrant that does not result in a miscarriage of justice does not necessitate revision.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that although there was a clerical error in the commitment warrant, which stated a fine of shs 5,000 instead of the actual fine of shs 45,000 imposed by the magistrate, this error did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The maximum default sentence of 3 months imprisonment was correctly reflected. Since the error was merely a slip of the pen and did not affect the substance of the conviction or sentence, no further action or revision order was deemed necessary.

Obiter and limits

  • A commitment warrant must reflect the sentence actually imposed by the trial magistrate.
  • No miscarriage of justice was caused by the clerical error in the warrant.

Court disposition

no revision order made; no further action necessary

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

[1996] UGHC 35

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA - HOLDEN AT GUIU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 22/93 (Original Criminal Case No. MM 244/91)

Uganda ............ versus ......., Rose Kakeyo. Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice G. M. Okello.

$ORDER: -$

The accused in the above case was convicted of Giving False Information to A person Employed in the Public Service contrary to section 109 (a) of the Penal Code Act and was sentenced to a fine of shs. 45,000/= or in default to 3 months imprisonment. She was committed to prison in default of paying the fine.

The file was called for inspection. It was pubsequently placed before me. On perusal, I had no quarrel with the conviction and sentence. My concern however was aroused by the Commitment Warrant dated 21/2/92 by which the accused was committed to prison in default of paying the fine.

The Commitment Warrant indicated that the a cused was committed to 3 months imprisonment in default of paying the fine of $5,000/=$ . Yet the court order showed that the accused was, fined shs 45,000/=. This disparity had also aroused the concern of the State Attorney who wrote opinion for the DPP when opinion of the latter was sought. In her letter ref DPP/04/9 of 11th July 1995 the learned State Attorney said

> "After perusal of the court record, I find that firstly, the warrant of commitment.

on a sentence of Imprisonment does not tally with the sentence imposed by the magistrate. Whereas the magistrate sentenced the offender to a fine of $45,000/$ = or 3 months imprisonment under S. $192(d)$ of the MCA. the warrant of commitment on a sentence of imprisonment provides for a fine of only $5,000/=$ or 3 months imprisonment in default".

A Commitment Warrant must reflect the sentence actually imposed by the trial magistrate. In this case as the fine imposed was $45,000/$ , the maximum default sentence provided under section

$.../2...$

192 (d) of the M. C. A as amended by Act 4 of 1985 is rightly 3 months. That should have been reflected in the Commitment Warrant.

$-2-$

In the whole, no miscarriage of justice was caused by that slip of the pen. No further action is therefore deemed necessary in the matter. No revision order will thus be made.

> Butuno G. M. Okollo Resident Judge Gulu. $2/1/96$ .

$\mathbf{1}$ $\boldsymbol{\Upsilon}$ $\mathcal{T}\mathrm{i}$ $W\mathring{I}.$ $W\mathcal{T}$ $\mathbf{S}\mathbf{O}$ $\texttt{St}_\mathfrak{l}$

$\tilde{\mathcal{A}}$

$\overline{\text{om}}$ $t h \varepsilon$ $10C$

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, section 109(a)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Magistrates Courts Act, section 192(d) 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.