Wakilii

Kayondo & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2014)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 353 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal against sentence following re-sentencing in the High Court
Decision
Appeal against sentence dismissed; 25 years imprisonment for each appellant upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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 sentence by two appellants re-sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment each for murder following the Kigula decision. Applying the Kiwalabye Bernard test, the Court held that an appellate court will not interfere with sentence unless it is manifestly excessive, so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, ignores an important matter, or is wrong in principle. The trial judge had considered all mitigating and aggravating factors and deducted time spent in incarceration, including remand. The sentence was appropriate and fair, and was upheld to run from the date of re-sentencing.

Facts

On 8 June 1999 at Bukata Village, Mukono District, the second appellant reported a blanket theft to the LC Chairman, who directed the first appellant, the area Defence Secretary, to handle the matter. A resident identified the deceased, Tumwine Denis, as having tried to sell a blanket. The appellants traced the deceased, who was lying drunk on a bench, arrested him, and took him by a rope tied to his waist, ostensibly to the LC1 Chairman. They assaulted him from around 10 pm until he died at about 3.00 am at the first appellant's residence. Both were convicted of murder and sentenced to death on 9 January 2003. Following Susan Kigula v Attorney General, they appeared for mitigation and re-sentencing after 11 years and 6 months on death row and were re-sentenced to 25 years imprisonment each.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge passed a manifestly harsh and excessive sentence by failing to exercise his sentencing discretion judiciously.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Sentence of 25 years imprisonment against each appellant upheld, to run from 22 July 2014 (date of re-sentencing).

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Appeals Against Sentence — Grounds for Appellate Interference
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed in the exercise of the trial court's discretion unless it is manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, or the trial court ignored an important matter that ought to have been considered, or the sentence is wrong in principle.
Sentencing — Murder — Deduction of Period Spent in Custody and on Remand
A sentence is not rendered illegal or manifestly excessive where the trial court has taken into account and deducted the period the convict spent in incarceration, including remand, when imposing the term of imprisonment.
Sentencing — Murder — Balancing Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
A re-sentence is properly arrived at where the trial court weighs all mitigating factors against aggravating factors, including the convict's position of responsibility in society and conduct while in custody, and finds the killing falls short of the rarest of the rare.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Penal Code Act s.183
  • Penal Code Act s.184
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) 2005 rule 30(1)

Cases cited (9)

  • Bikango Daniel v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2014)
  • Obwalatum Francis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2015)
  • Semanda Christopher v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2010)
  • Buhinda v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2012)
  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Susan Kigula and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2006)
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.