Uganda v Kakayo Rose (Criminal Revision Case No. 22 93 (Original Criminal Case No. MM 244 91))
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
Held that while the commitment warrant incorrectly recorded the fine as shs. 5,000/= instead of shs. 45,000/= as imposed by the trial magistrate, this clerical error did not cause a miscarriage of justice. The conviction and sentence were upheld, and no revision order was made.
Outcome
Conviction and sentence upheld despite clerical error in commitment warrant
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 shs. 45,000/= or in default three months imprisonment. She was committed to prison in default of paying the fine. The commitment warrant dated 21 February 1992 indicated that the accused was committed to three months imprisonment in default of paying a fine of shs. 5,000/=, not shs. 45,000/= as imposed by the trial court. The file was called for inspection and the discrepancy was noted by both the High Court judge and the State Attorney.
Issues
- Whether there was a discrepancy between the fine imposed by the magistrate and the fine recorded in the commitment warrant.
- Whether the discrepancy in the commitment warrant constituted a miscarriage of justice requiring revision.
Orders
- No revision order made.
- Conviction and sentence upheld.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.