Wakilii

Uganda v Nelson Ogival and Others (Criminal Revision No. 90 of 91)

High Court · [1991] UGHC 103 · 1991 Revision Declined — Convictions Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision from Chief Magistrate's Court of Lira following reference for possible revision order
Decision
Convictions upheld as proper despite procedural defect in recording pleas

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

Court declined to make a revision order where trial magistrate improperly recorded guilty pleas without capturing the accused persons' words verbatim as required by section 122(2) of the Magistrates Court Act. The procedural error was cured by the accused persons' subsequent admission of the facts narrated, which clearly established all elements of the offence charged.

Outcome

Convictions upheld as proper despite procedural defect in recording pleas

Facts

Three accused persons were jointly charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 228 of the Penal Code Act. They were convicted on their own pleas and subsequently cautioned. The trial magistrate recorded the pleas merely as "P.G. entered" for each accused without capturing their words as required by law. Facts were narrated and the accused persons admitted their correctness, stating how all three assaulted the complainant causing bodily injuries. The Chief Magistrate of Lira referred the matter to the High Court for possible revision.

Issues

  1. Whether the pleas recorded by the trial magistrate complied with section 122(2) of the Magistrates Court Act.
  2. Whether the defective recording of pleas was cured by the accused persons' subsequent admission of the facts.

Orders

  • No revision order made.
  • File directed to be sent to Aloi Magistrates Court for retention.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Recording of Pleas — Requirements under Magistrates Court Act
Section 122(2) of the Magistrates Court Act requires that when an accused admits the truth of a charge, the admission must be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused person.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Defective Pleas — Cure by Subsequent Admission of Facts
A defect in the recording of guilty pleas may be cured where the accused persons subsequently admit the correctness of facts which clearly establish all elements of the offence charged.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Adan v Republic (1973) EA 445

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Uganda v Nelson Ogival and Others (Criminal Revision No. 90 of 91) [1991] UGHC 103 (20 August 1991)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.