Wakilii

Kiyemba and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 391 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence only from a High Court conviction for aggravated robbery
Decision
Appeal against sentence dismissed; sentence of 30 years' imprisonment for aggravated robbery upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 appellants, convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment, appealed against sentence only, arguing it was harsh and manifestly excessive and inconsistent with comparable cases. The Court of Appeal restated that it 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 be a miscarriage of justice, ignores a material consideration, or is wrong in principle. The court held that consistency is difficult because each case turns on its own distinguishable facts. The trial judge had weighed both aggravating and mitigating factors and the time spent on remand. Finding no illegality and that the sentence was neither harsh nor excessive, the court declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal.

Facts

On 20 September 2013 at around midnight at Bwenyegye village, Rakai District, the appellants, armed with a knife and sticks, robbed the victims of various items: Bainomugisha Eriab of his mobile phone, Kaheesi Vincent of UGX 200,000 and Kebikari Beatrice of UGX 300,000. Immediately before the robbery the appellants used the knife and stick to hit the victims. They were identified by Tubingana Jennifer with the aid of torchlight, the appellants being familiar to her as residents of the area. They were charged on three counts of aggravated robbery, acquitted on count 2 for insufficient evidence, and convicted on counts 1 and 3 and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment each, the sentences to run concurrently. The trial judge noted that the convicts were young, were a danger to society, had threatened to kill and were on the verge of raping a girl, were not remorseful, and the time spent on remand was taken into account.

Issues

  1. Whether the sentence of 30 years' imprisonment imposed on the appellants for aggravated robbery was harsh and manifestly excessive such that the appellate court should interfere with it.

Orders

  • The sentence of 30 years' imprisonment is upheld.
  • The appeal is dismissed.

Key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Sentencing 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 that ought to have been considered, or the sentence is wrong in principle.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Consistency and Uniformity of Sentences
While consistency and uniformity in sentencing are desirable, there can hardly be consistency in sentences because each case presents its own unique facts that are distinguishable.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Weighing of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
A sentence will not be disturbed on appeal where the trial judge has taken into account both the aggravating and mitigating factors and the period spent on remand, and no illegality attaches to the sentence.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.285
  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.286(2)
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.132(1)(b)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (11)

  • Bunya Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
  • Kusemererwa & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2010)
  • Okulu Jimmy v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2013)
  • Bukenya Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2010)
  • Mutebi Ronald & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2019)
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Olupot Sharif & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0730 of 2014)
  • Ojangole Peter v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2017)
  • Guloba Rogers v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2013)
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.