Baingana v Uganda
Baingana v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 10 of 2016) [2019] UGSC 77 (28 June 2019)
The Supreme Court found that the appellant had, on the balance of probabilities, satisfied the sentence by payment of the fine, as evidenced by the cashier's acknowledgment and the appellant's release from custody, despite the absence of a formal receipt. Therefore, the default imprisonment sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal was unwarranted. The Court further held that the Court of Appeal erred in enhancing the compensation order by imposing interest at 21% and requiring payment within 7 days, as there was no justification for interfering with the trial court's discretion in sentencing.…
Source excerpt
- Obtaining Money By False Pretences
- Conspiracy To Defraud
- Sentencing And Fines
- Compensation Orders
- Appellate Jurisdiction
- Double Jeopardy