Share
Uganda v Kakayo (Criminal Revision 22 of 1993) [1996] UGHC 35 (2 January 1996)
- Citation
- [1996] UGHC 35
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Criminal Revision 22 of 1993
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- GM OKELLO, J
- Case number
- Criminal Revision 22 of 1993
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
ApplicantRose Kakeyo
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed: UGX 45,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the commitment warrant accurately reflected the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate.
- 02
Whether the disparity between the fine stated in the court order and the commitment warrant caused a miscarriage of justice.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
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 - 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. $2/1/96$ .
◢
$\mathbf{1}$ $\boldsymbol{\Upsilon}$ $\mathcal{T}\mathrm{i}$ $W\mathring{I}.$ $W\mathcal{T}$ $\mathbf{S}\mathbf{O}$ $\texttt{St}_\mathfrak{l}$
$\tilde{\mathcal{A}}$
$\overline{\text{om}}$ $t h \varepsilon$ $10C$
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.