Okello v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 101 of 2016)

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Holding

On an appeal against sentence following a guilty plea to manslaughter, the Court held that a sentencing court must account for time spent on remand by arriving at a definite term, as directed in Kabwiso Isa; merely stating the sentence was imposed "period spent on remand inclusive" did not satisfy Article 23(8), rendering the 25-year sentence not definite. The Court also held the trial judge erred in failing to weigh all mitigating factors against the aggravating factors. The sentence was set aside. Comparing sentences for manslaughter, the Court re-sentenced the appellant to 15 years, deducted the 2 years and 8 months spent on remand, and imposed 12 years and 4 months running from 3 May 2016.

Facts

The appellant and the deceased, Ochola Patrick, were step-brothers living in the same homestead in Kitgum District. On 15 June 2013, the appellant, in the company of four others and the deceased, attended a burial and became drunk on the way home. The deceased refused to go home, and in trying to make him do so the appellant punched and kicked him. The deceased became unconscious and was abandoned in the bush, found the next morning and taken to hospital, where he died; the cause of death was violent trauma leading to a fracture of the cervical bone. The appellant was initially charged with murder, later reduced to manslaughter. He changed his plea to guilty and was sentenced by the High Court to 25 years' imprisonment. In mitigation it was noted he was a 40-year-old first offender with nine children and three wives, who had spent 2 years and 8 months on remand and had no intention to kill.

Issues

1. Whether the sentence of 25 years' imprisonment was illegal because the trial judge failed to take into account the period the appellant spent on remand as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution.
2. Whether the sentence of 25 years' imprisonment was harsh and excessive in the circumstances of the case.
3. Whether the trial judge failed to weigh the mitigating factors advanced in the appellant's favour.

Orders

• The sentence of 25 years' imprisonment is set aside.
• The appellant is re-sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment.
• The period of 2 years and 8 months spent on remand is deducted, and the appellant is sentenced to 12 years and 4 months' imprisonment.
• The sentence shall run from 3 May 2016, the date the appellant was first sentenced.

Key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Penal Code Act Cap. 120 s.187
• Penal Code Act Cap. 120 s.190
• Constitution Article 23(8)
• Constitution Article 126(2)(d)
• Prisons Act s.86(3)
• Judicature Act s.11
• Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013, Paragraph 21
• Court of Appeal Rules r.67
• Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)(a)

Cases cited (18)

• Oumo Ben alias Ofwono v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2016)
• PC Amukun John Michael & DC Oruba Michael v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2011)
• Tigo Stephen v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2009)
• Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
• Mutebi Ronald v. Uganda (supra)
• Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
• Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2014)
• Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2001)
• Kabuge Senoewo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2002)
• Katende Ahamad v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
• Bukenga Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2010)
• Kabwiso Isa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2002)
• Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
• Kiwalabye Benard Vs Uganda (supra)
• Ahimbisibwe Solomon v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2010)
• Okwaimungu Dominic v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2014)
• Mawanda Patrick v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2010)
• Ainobushobozi Venancio v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2014)