Judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal on 25th of March, 2026

The respondent, a foreign national, pleaded guilty in the Subordinate Court to making a false statement to an immigration officer and engaging in business without a permit. He was fined on both counts, and the court further ordered forfeiture of USD 21,330. Dissatisfied, he appealed to the High Court against the forfeiture order, but the High Court invoked its revisionary jurisdiction and set aside the forfeiture on grounds not raised by the parties.

On appeal by the state, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court erred in law by exercising revisionary powers in a matter properly before it on appeal. Under Section 338(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court is prohibited from exercising revisionary jurisdiction where a convicted person has already appealed, unless the appeal is withdrawn. By introducing and determining an issue outside the grounds of appeal without hearing the parties, the High Court acted ultra vires and in breach of principles of natural justice. Its decision was therefore set aside.

Additionally, the Court of Appeal identified serious irregularities in the taking of the plea in the Subordinate Court. Despite the respondent being represented by counsel, the trial court improperly questioned him on the ingredients of the offence and entered a plea of guilty without adequately involving counsel. Further, when counsel disputed part of the facts, the court failed to determine whether the disputed facts were material or to resolve the inconsistency before proceeding to convict. This rendered the plea equivocal and defective.

The Court held that where facts are disputed during a plea of guilty, the trial court must determine whether those facts are material to the offence. If material, a plea of not guilty must be entered; if not, the disputed portions should be removed with the prosecution’s consent before conviction. Failure to follow this procedure constitutes a serious misdirection.

In the result, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, quashed the conviction in count two, and set aside the forfeiture order. The matter was remitted to the Subordinate Court for fresh plea and possible trial.

This case underscores that revisionary powers cannot be exercised where an appeal is pending, and that strict compliance with proper plea-taking procedures is essential, as any irregularity may vitiate the conviction and subsequent orders.