Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Uganda v Twerinde Dennis and Phaphius Karwize (Revision Case No. 17/95) [1996] UGHC 71 (1 July 1996)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The sentence of six strokes of the cane imposed on the accused, who was 16 years old at the time of conviction, was illegal because section 191(3) of the Magistrate's Court Act only permits corporal punishment for males under the age of sixteen. The accused, being 16, did not qualify for such a sentence. The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the illegal sentence and ordered that, if corporal punishment had not been implemented, the accused be cautioned under section 202(1) of the Magistrate's Court Act. The case was remitted to the lower court for compliance with this order.

Court disposition

Sentence of corporal punishment set aside as illegal; accused to be cautioned if punishment not implemented.

Orders

  • The sentence of six strokes of the cane imposed on the accused is set aside as illegal.
  • If corporal punishment has not been implemented, the accused is to be cautioned under section 202(1) of the Magistrate's Court Act.
  • The court record is remitted to Kabale for compliance with this order.

02

Material facts

Parties

Uganda

Applicant

Twerinde Deus

Respondent

Phaphias Karwize

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Value of Stolen Property: UGX 40,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Revision / Revisional Order/confirmation

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Director of Public Prosecutions, upon review, stated that the sentence of six strokes of the cane imposed on the accused, who was 16 years old, was illegal under section 191(3) of the Magistrate's Court Act. The DPP did not wish to be heard further in the event of a revisional order.
Respondent
The accused pleaded guilty to the charge of theft and admitted all ingredients of the offence. No substantive argument was advanced by the accused regarding the legality of the sentence.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 252 Penal Code Act

    A person convicted of theft is liable to imprisonment for five years under the Penal Code Act.

  2. 02

    Section 190(1) Magistrate's Court Act 1970

    No sentence of imprisonment may be passed on a person under the apparent age of 18 years.

  3. 03

    Section 191(3) Magistrate's Court Act 1970

    Corporal punishment may only be imposed on a male person under the age of sixteen years as a substitute for imprisonment.

  4. 04

    Section 167 Magistrate's Court Act 1970

    Where a sentence is found to be illegal, the High Court may set it aside and substitute an appropriate order.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The sentence of six strokes of the cane imposed on the accused, who was 16 years old at the time of conviction, was illegal because section 191(3) of the Magistrate's Court Act only permits corporal punishment for males under the age of sixteen. The accused, being 16, did not qualify for such a sentence. The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the illegal sentence and ordered that, if corporal punishment had not been implemented, the accused be cautioned under section 202(1) of the Magistrate's Court Act. The case was remitted to the lower court for compliance with this order.

Obiter and limits

  • It is not clear whether the corporal punishment has been implemented or not; in case it has not, the accused should be cautioned under section 202(1) of the Magistrate's Court Act.
  • The court record is remitted back to Kabale with a view to comply with the order.

Court disposition

Sentence of corporal punishment set aside as illegal; accused to be cautioned if punishment not implemented.

  • The sentence of six strokes of the cane imposed on the accused is set aside as illegal.
  • If corporal punishment has not been implemented, the accused is to be cautioned under section 202(1) of the Magistrate's Court Act.
  • The court record is remitted to Kabale for compliance with this order.

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 71

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

REVISION CR CASE NO. $17/95$

(ARISING OUT OF CR. CASE NO. MKAT 7/93)

KABAIE

UGANDA : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

VERSUS

TWERINDE DENNIS Ō ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ACCUSED

2. PHAPHIAS KARWIZE

I REFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. MUKANZA.

REVISIONAL ORDER/CONFIRMATION

This file was passed over to me with a view to confirmation of sentence as provided for under section 167 of the Magistrate's Court $\sim$ $\sim$ $\sim$

Act 1970.

$\cdot$ , $\cdot$

The accused Twerinde Deus and another were charged of the following $\ldots \cdots$ offences =

$\mathcal{L} \mathcal{L}$

$\ldots\ldots\,$

"Theft contrary to section 252 of the penal code. In the alternative they were charged with the offence of receiving or retaining stolen property contrary to section 198(1) of the penal code Act."

The particulars of the offences were that Twerinde Deus and another one at the stadium in Kabale District stole a bag, a shirt, canvass, shoes, jacket and a trouser valued at shillings 40.000/= the property of Seburu and in the alternative they received the same having reason $-1$ to believe the same to have been feloniously stolen.

The accused Twerinde pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted on his own plea of guilty to the theft charge and was sentenced to six strokes.

According to the facts of the case the accused admitted all the ingredients of the offence and I am satisfied that he was properly convicted. A person convicted of theft is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

The accused being a younger offender under the apparent age of 18 years no sentence of imprisonment could be passed on him see section 190 (1) MCA 1970. $.../2$

However under S 191(3) whenever a male person under the age of sixteen years is convicted of any offence for which he is liable to imprisonment the court may in its discretion sentence him to corporal punishment in addition to or in substitution for my punishment to which he is liable.

de para la constituira del

ģ‚¬ėžŒģ€ ģ“ė²ˆ ė‚“ ķ•œ 2개 : źµ­ź°€ė”œ

$\cdots \cdots \cdots$

$\mathbf{1} \leftarrow \mathbf{1} \mathbf{1} \cdots \mathbf{1} \mathbf{1}$

$\cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$

$\mathbf{L} = \mathbf{L}^{\mathbf{A}} \mathbf{L}^{\mathbf{A}} \mathbf{L}^{\mathbf{A}} \mathbf{L}^{\mathbf{A}} \mathbf{L}^{\mathbf{A}} \mathbf{L}^{\mathbf{A}}$

The particulars of the charge sheet do show that the accused is stated to be 16 years old and not under the age of 16 years. Corporal punishment $\sim$ $\sim$ $\sim$ of six years strokes of the cane could not therefore be passed on him. The sentence was therefore illegal. When the DPP was contacted about the matter his reply reference NO. DPP/02/1 dated 3.11.95 addressed to the Assistant Registrar Crime had this to say -

> "The case papers reveal that the accused person NO.1 Twerinde was 16 years at the time he committed the offence. He pleaded guilty to the offence of theft and was.sentenced to six strokes of the cane on his own plea. This sentence in my view is illegal because the accused was 16 years and under section 191(3) MCA he could not have corporal punishment administered on him. In the event of a revisional order being made the Director of Public Prosecution does not wish to be heard. $\mathbf{u}$ and $\mathbf{v}$ and $\mathbf{v}$ are $\mathbf{u}$ .

From what has transpired above as I stated earlier on the sentence of $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L}$ six strokes of the cane passed on the accused NO.1 Twerinder is illegal in a prime to the second of the second $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L} \oplus \mathcal{L}$ and the same is set aside. It is not clear whether the corporal punishment has been implemented or not. In case it has not the accused be cautioned $\mathbf{a} = \mathbf{a} \mathbf{a} \mathbf{a}$ under S 202(1) of the MCA 1979. The court record is therefore remitted $\mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1} = \mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1} = \mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1}$ back to Kabale with a view to comply with the order. $\alpha_{11}$ , $\alpha_{12}$ , $\beta_{13}$ , $\beta_{14}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ , $\beta_{15}$ ,

I. MUKANZA

JUDGE

$1.5 \times 1.7.1996 \times 1.4 \times 10^{11} \text{ m}$

SET A SET A

$\mathbf{a} \rightarrow \mathbf{a} \quad \mathbf{a} \quad \mathbf{b} \quad \mathbf{c} \quad \mathbf{a} \quad \mathbf{b} \quad \mathbf{a} \quad \mathbf{b} \quad \mathbf{b} \quad \mathbf{c} \quad \mathbf{c} \quad \mathbf{c} \quad \mathbf{c} \quad \mathbf{c} \quad \mathbf{c} \quad \mathbf{c}$

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

$\mathbf{x} \mapsto \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mapsto \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mapsto \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mapsto \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mapsto \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mapsto \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mapsto \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y}} \mapsto \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{y$

$\cdots \cdots$

a management of the third to the management

$\cdots \cdots \cdots$

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 252 Penal Code Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 190(1) Magistrate's Court Act 1970

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 191(3) Magistrate's Court Act 1970

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 167 Magistrate's Court Act 1970

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 202(1) Magistrate's Court Act 1970

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.