Galabuzi & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 299 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 286 · 2024 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Criminal appeal against sentence from High Court conviction for murder following a plea of guilty

Decision

Appeal partially allowed; original sentences set aside as illegal and appellants re-sentenced with the remand period deducted (third appellant 15 years 10 months; first and second appellants 20 years 10 months from date of conviction).

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 allowed a sentence appeal by three murder convicts. It held that the trial judge's order stating the sentence was 'period on remand inclusive' was ambiguous and unlawful: Article 23(8) of the Constitution and Sentencing Guideline 15 require the court first to ascertain the precise remand period and then arithmetically deduct it from the sentence, which the trial judge did not do. The sentences were therefore illegal and set aside. Having found ground one dispositive, the court declined to consider whether the sentences were harsh, and re-sentenced the appellants under section 11 of the Judicature Act, deducting the 4 years 7 months remand period.

Facts

On 24 July 2012 the three appellants attacked Mwanje Muhammed in his rented room at Kiga Wantoni, Mukono. They robbed him of two phones and then killed him by stabbing. All three appellants pleaded guilty to the indictment of murder before the High Court at Mukono. The first and second appellants, William Galabuzi and Edward Ssempijja, were sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment, and the third appellant, Augustine Byakatonda, to 25 years. The appellants had spent 4 years and 7 months on remand prior to conviction. In sentencing, the trial judge stated the terms were imposed 'period on remand inclusive' without first ascertaining the actual remand period. At the time of the offence the first appellant was 26 years old and the second appellant 18; all three were first offenders and expressed remorse.

Issues

Whether the trial judge erred by failing to deduct the period the appellants spent on remand when sentencing them.
Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants were manifestly harsh and excessive.

Orders

Ground 1 of the appeal succeeds; the sentences imposed by the trial court are set aside.
The third appellant is sentenced to 20 years and 5 months from the date of sentencing, less the remand period of 4 years 7 months, to serve 15 years and 10 months from the date of conviction of 3 August 2017.
The first and second appellants are sentenced to 25 years and 5 months from the date of sentence, less the remand period of 4 years 7 months, to serve 20 years and 10 months from the date of conviction of 3 August 2017.
The appeal partially succeeds.

Key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Deduction of Remand Period under Article 23(8) of the Constitution

A sentencing court must first ascertain the precise period an accused spent on remand and then arithmetically deduct that period from the sentence considered appropriate; merely stating that a sentence is imposed 'period on remand inclusive', without ascertaining the actual period, does not satisfy Article 23(8) of the Constitution and renders the sentence illegal.

Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Interference with Sentencing Discretion

An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed in the exercise of the trial court's discretion unless the sentence is manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, the trial court ignored an important matter that ought to have been considered, or the sentence was imposed on a wrong principle.

Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Re-sentencing on Appeal under Section 11 of the Judicature Act

Where a sentence is found to be illegal for failure to consider the remand period, the Court of Appeal may set it aside and, exercising the powers conferred by section 11 of the Judicature Act, re-sentence the appellant taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors including youth, first-offender status, remorse and a plea of guilty.

Legislation cited (9)

Penal Code Act s.188
Penal Code Act s.189
Constitution of Uganda Article 23(8)
Judicature Act s.11
Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions Guideline 15(1)
Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions Guideline 15(2)
Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions Guideline 9(h)
Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions Guideline 6(c)
Court of Appeal Rules Rule 30(1)

Cases cited (15)

Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Kiwalabye Bernard u Uganda Supreme Court Criminal Appeal 143 of 2021,[2005] UGCA 74
Rutabuganda v Uganda [2017] UGSC 8
Kabakera Steven v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2016)
Francis Butalatum v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 048 of 2011)
Bamanya Happy & Kafumba Rashid v Uganda (SCCA No. 22 of 2010)
Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
Byaruhanga Okot v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 078 of 2010)
Bachua Benon v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2014)
Bongo Abdul v Uganda (SCCA No. 7 of 2021)
Atio Angelo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2015)
Sebuliba Siraji v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2009)
Bakuba Muzamiru v Uganda (SCCA No. 17 of 2015)
Kyotereka George v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2013)
Mbuya Godfrey v Uganda (SCCA No. 4 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.