Wakilii

Wassaja and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2011)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 87 · 2022 Sentence Reduced ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence only from High Court conviction for murder
Decision
Sentence of 50 years set aside and substituted with 35 years imprisonment for each appellant, running from date of conviction

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is 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

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had in fact considered the appellants' mitigating factors, including their status as first time offenders and the remand period, contrary to the appellants' contention, so the sentence was not illegal under article 23(8). However, applying the principle of uniformity and consistency in sentencing with comparable murder cases, the Court found the 50 year sentence harsh and excessive in the circumstances. It set aside the sentence and substituted a sentence of 35 years imprisonment for each appellant, to run from the date of conviction.

Facts

The appellants gained access to the deceased's house through a window and used a piece of cloth to cover her mouth and nose, strangling her to death. The first appellant then went to the room of the deceased's daughter, Nanono Pauline, demanded money and threatened to kill her, then raped her while slapping her with a knife. After these acts the appellants left. They were arrested, charged, tried and convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act, and each sentenced to 50 years imprisonment. The appellants had been in custody since 2008, approximately four years on remand. They appealed against sentence only, contending the sentence was manifestly harsh and that mitigating factors and the remand period had not been considered.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge imposed a manifestly harsh and excessive sentence by sentencing the appellants to 50 years imprisonment for murder.
  2. Whether the trial judge failed to take into account the appellants' mitigating factors, including their status as first time offenders and the remand period, rendering the sentence illegal under article 23(8) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Sentence of 50 years imprisonment for each appellant set aside.
  • Each appellant sentenced to 35 years imprisonment, to run from the date of conviction.

Key headnotes

Sentencing — Appellate Interference — Manifestly Excessive Sentence
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed in the exercise of a trial court's discretion unless the sentence is manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, or where the trial court ignored an important matter or where the sentence is wrong in principle.
Sentencing — Remand Period — Article 23(8) of the Constitution
A sentence is not illegal under article 23(8) of the Constitution where the trial judge expressly notes and takes into account the period the convict spent in lawful custody on remand before sentencing.
Sentencing — Uniformity and Consistency — Comparable Sentences
Courts must adhere to the principle of uniformity and consistency in sentencing persons convicted of similar offences, and sentences imposed in previous cases of a similar nature, while not binding precedents, afford material for consideration.
Sentencing — Lawful Sentences for Capital Offences
Sentences of more than 20 years imprisonment for capital offences are not illegal because they are less than the maximum sentence of death; courts have power to pass appropriate sentences provided they do not exceed the statutory maximum.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.132(1)(b)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.23(8)
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.11
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Guideline 6(c)

Cases cited (17)

  • Abaasa Johnson v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2010)
  • Ederema Tomasi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 2014)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • 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)
  • Friday Yasin v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2021)
  • Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Mbunya Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
  • Wamutabanewe Jamiru v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2007)
  • Nkonge Robert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2009)
  • Semanda Christopher & another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2010)
  • Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
  • Adupa Dickens v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2017)
  • Bakubye Muzamiru and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2015)
  • Okello Geoffrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2014)
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.