Uganda v Kakayo (Criminal Revision 22 of 1993)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
High Court declined to make a revision order after finding a clerical error in a Commitment Warrant. The warrant indicated a fine of 5,000/= when the court had imposed 45,000/=, but the correct default sentence of 3 months imprisonment was recorded. The court held that no miscarriage of justice resulted from the slip of the pen, as the default imprisonment term was correctly stated under section 192(d) of the Magistrates Courts Act as amended.
Outcome
No further action deemed necessary; conviction and sentence remain undisturbed
Facts
The accused was convicted of Giving False Information to A Person Employed in the Public Service contrary to section 109(a) of the Penal Code Act. She was sentenced to a fine of 45,000/= or in default 3 months imprisonment. She was committed to prison in default of paying the fine. On revision, the High Court discovered that the Commitment Warrant dated 21/2/92 indicated a fine of only 5,000/= instead of the 45,000/= actually imposed by the trial magistrate. The default imprisonment term of 3 months was correctly recorded. The State Attorney had also noted this discrepancy when the Director of Public Prosecutions sought an opinion.
Issues
- Whether the Commitment Warrant correctly reflected the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate.
Orders
- No revision order made.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.