Wakilii

Agudi Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.9 of 1999)

Court of Appeal · [2000] UGCA 30 · 2000 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence only from High Court conviction for defilement
Decision
Appeal against sentence dismissed; conviction and 14-year sentence upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a 14-year sentence for defilement of a seven-year-old. It held that under section 93 of the Trial on Indictments Decree, failure to hear the accused on sentence is not fatal to the validity of proceedings, and in any event the appellant's counsel had addressed the court on sentence with mitigation. The Court further held the sentence was not manifestly excessive: defilement carries a maximum of death, an average sentence is around 15 years, the trial judge had considered the remand period, and the offence was aggravated by the appellant defiling his landlord's child whom he should have protected.

Facts

The appellant, a 32-year-old first offender, defiled a seven-year-old girl, the child of his landlord, contrary to section 123(1) of the Penal Code Act. The victim was badly injured in the private parts. On 9 March 1999 the High Court at Mukono convicted him and sentenced him to 14 years imprisonment. At sentencing his counsel addressed the court in mitigation, noting he was a first offender, a single parent of six children whose mother had died, a hernia patient, and had spent about two years on remand, praying for leniency. With leave, the appellant appealed against sentence only, arguing he was not heard in allocutus and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in passing sentence without first hearing the appellant in allocutus.
  2. Whether the sentence of 14 years imprisonment for defilement was manifestly excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal against sentence dismissed.

Key headnotes

Sentencing — Allocutus — Failure to Hear Accused on Sentence
Under section 93 of the Trial on Indictments Decree, the omission to ask a convicted person whether he has anything to say before sentence is passed does not affect the validity of the proceedings; nevertheless a trial court should always ensure the accused or his counsel is heard on sentence so that all relevant matters may be considered.
Sentencing — Allocutus Satisfied by Counsel's Address
Where the accused is represented and his counsel addresses the court in mitigation on instructions, the requirement to hear the accused on sentence is substantially satisfied.
Sentencing — Manifestly Excessive Sentence — Defilement
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence as manifestly excessive where it falls within the range ordinarily imposed for the offence; for defilement, which carries a maximum sentence of death, a term of 14 years for an aggravated case is not manifestly excessive.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Penal Code Act s.123(1)
  • Trial on Indictments Decree 1971 s.93
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.