Uganda Case Law

Uganda v Olet

Uganda v Olet (Criminal Revision 20 of 89) [1990] UGHC 34 (7 March 1990)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Revision 20 of 89

Judges

GM OKELLO, J

The trial magistrate failed to follow the mandatory procedure after the accused's plea of guilty by not putting the narrated facts to the accused for admission or denial, rendering the conviction unsafe. The particulars of the charge were vague, especially in count 2, failing to adequately inform the accused of the alleged offence. The accused's previous conviction was not proved as required by law, yet it was used to justify consecutive sentences and to treat the accused as an habitual offender. These procedural irregularities are fundamental and cannot be cured; therefore, the convictions a…

Source excerpt

• Plea Of Guilty Procedure
• Proof Of Previous Conviction
• Sentencing Irregularities
• Charge Particulars
• Habitual Offender
• Magistrate Duties

Uganda v Polino

Uganda v Polino (Criminal Session Case 20 of 1989) [1990] UGHC 40 (7 March 1990)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Session Case 20 of 1989

Judges

GM OKELLO, J

The court found that the trial magistrate committed several procedural irregularities: failing to put the facts of the case to the accused after his plea of guilty, recording ambiguous pleas, and relying on unproven previous convictions to impose consecutive sentences as a habitual offender. The particulars of the offence in count 2 were vague and did not adequately inform the accused of the charge. The established procedure, as set out in ADAN v. Republic and followed in Uganda, requires that after a plea of guilty, the facts must be narrated and put to the accused for admission or denial. O…

Source excerpt

• Plea Procedure
• Conviction Irregularities
• Habitual Offender Status
• Proof Of Previous Conviction

Rex v Fernandes

Rex v Fernandes (Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1943) [1943] EACA 57 (1 January 1943)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1943

Judge

Thacker J

The court held that a previous conviction must be proved under section 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code unless admitted, and reduced an unlawful default sentence.

• Proof Of Previous Conviction
• Sentencing Ultra Vires
• Traffic Offences
• Criminal Procedure Code Section 142
• Criminal-procedure
• Previous-convictions