Wakilii

Lusamba v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2012)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 81 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence from a High Court conviction for murder on a plea of guilty
Decision
Appeal against sentence dismissed; sentence of 25 years imprisonment 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 a 25-year sentence for murder imposed on a plea of guilty. The Court held that, although the trial Judge did not expressly state the remand period deducted, she was alive to the fact that the appellant had been on remand since 2010 and took it into account, satisfying Article 23(8) of the Constitution. Following Abelle Asuman v Uganda, differing wording or a failure to state the deducted period are matters of style that do not vitiate a sentence where the constitutional obligation is in effect met. The sentence fell within the consistency and uniformity principle and was neither harsh nor excessive.

Facts

The deceased, Lubowa Bob, and the appellant were both musicians and residents of Entebbe Municipality. On 16 September 2010 at around 7:00pm, the deceased was playing music in his room while the appellant played a guitar. The appellant went to the deceased's home, asked him to reduce the loud music, and closed the deceased's door. A fight ensued when the deceased asked why his door had been closed. The appellant's girlfriend, Namagembe Shamim, tried to stop the fight but failed. After the fight appeared to stop, the deceased kicked the appellant as he was entering his room, causing him to fall. The appellant entered his house, opened the fridge, took a sharp knife and stabbed the deceased in the throat. The deceased fell, bled and died before help arrived. The appellant was arrested, indicted for murder, and on his own plea of guilty was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. He appealed against sentence only.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge imposed a manifestly harsh sentence on the appellant.
  2. Whether the trial Judge failed to take into account the period the appellant had spent on remand as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the sentence of 25 years' imprisonment was consistent with sentencing levels for similar offences.

Orders

  • This appeal is dismissed.
  • The trial court's sentence of 25 years imprisonment is upheld.

Key headnotes

Sentencing — Appellate Interference — Exercise of Trial Court's Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed by a trial court in the exercise of its discretion unless the sentence is manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, or the trial court ignored an important matter or circumstance, or the sentence is wrong in principle.
Sentencing — Article 23(8) — Account of Remand Period
Where a sentencing court has clearly demonstrated that it took into account the period spent on remand to the credit of the convict, the sentence will not be interfered with merely because the court used different words or did not expressly state the period deducted; such matters of style do not vitiate the sentence where the constitutional obligation under Article 23(8) is in effect met.
Sentencing — Consistency and Uniformity Principle
Courts must, as far as possible, maintain consistency in sentencing persons convicted of similar offences committed in similar circumstances, in accordance with Guideline 6(c) of the Constitution Sentencing Guidelines.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.132(1)(b)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.23(8)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Guideline 6(c)

Cases cited (12)

  • Abaasa Johnson v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2010)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2014)
  • Ederema Tomasi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 2014)
  • Tukamuhebwa & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2016)
  • Selle and Another v Associated Motor Boat Company Limited and Others [1968] EA 123
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
  • Mbunya Godfrey v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
  • Adupa Dickens v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2017)
  • Uwera Nsenga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2015)
  • Akbar Godi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
  • Semanda Christopher and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2010)
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.