Wakilii

Twesigye v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 709 of 2014)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 256 · 2024 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence from High Court conviction entered on a plea of guilty
Decision
Original sentence set aside as illegal; fresh sentence imposed deducting the remand period, leaving the appellant to serve 10 years 7 months 11 days for rape and 17 years 6 months 11 days for aggravated robbery concurrently.

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 appellant, convicted on his own plea of rape and aggravated robbery and sentenced to 11 and 18 years' imprisonment concurrently, appealed against sentence only, on the ground that the trial judge failed to deduct the period spent on remand. The respondent conceded the omission. The Court of Appeal held that under Article 23(8) of the Constitution and Guideline 15 of the Sentencing Guidelines the remand period must be arithmetically deducted, and that the omission rendered the sentence illegal. It set aside the sentence and imposed a fresh one, deducting the 169 days (5 months 19 days) on remand, so the appellant serves 10 years 7 months 11 days for rape and 17 years 6 months 11 days for aggravated robbery, concurrently.

Facts

On 27 November 2013 at Kyeizooba sub-county, Bushenyi district, the appellant accosted the victim at night, ordered her to stop, chased and caught her, and at knifepoint dragged her to a nearby bush and then to his home, where he had sexual intercourse with her through the night before releasing her in the morning. He robbed her of bread, a cloth, a pair of shoes and Shs 20,000. The victim reported the matter and was found to have sustained bodily injuries, including to her private parts. The appellant, aged 25 and found to be HIV positive, was arrested. He pleaded guilty and was convicted of rape and aggravated robbery and sentenced to 11 years and 18 years' imprisonment respectively, to run concurrently. He had spent 169 days (5 months 19 days) on remand, which the trial court did not deduct from the sentence.

Issues

  1. Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court was illegal for failure to deduct the period spent on remand.

Orders

  • The sentence of the trial court is set aside as illegal.
  • Fresh sentences of 11 years for rape and 18 years for aggravated robbery imposed, to run concurrently.
  • The period of 169 days (5 months 19 days) spent on remand is deducted from the sentence.
  • The appellant shall serve 10 years 7 months and 11 days for rape and 17 years 6 months and 11 days for aggravated robbery, the sentences to run concurrently from the date of conviction.

Key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Deduction of Period Spent on Remand — Article 23(8) of the Constitution
A sentencing court is under a duty to take into account and arithmetically deduct the period an accused has spent on remand from the sentence considered appropriate; failure to do so renders the sentence illegal and liable to be set aside.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Interference with Sentence on Appeal
An appellate court will interfere with the sentence of a trial court only where there is an illegality, such as where the trial court acted contrary to the law or upon a wrong principle or overlooked a material fact.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Penal Code Act s.123
  • Penal Code Act s.124
  • Penal Code Act s.285
  • Penal Code Act s.286
  • Constitution of Uganda art.23(8)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Guideline 15

Cases cited (4)

  • Jackson Zita v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
  • Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Rwabuganda Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Nashimolo Paul Kibolo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2017)
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.