Wakilii

Makuba Alimaks v Uganda (Civil Appeal 384 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 31 · 2024 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court conviction and sentence for aggravated defilement
Decision
Grounds challenging the conviction struck out; the 20-year sentence set aside as illegal and substituted with 18 years, 1 month and 26 days' imprisonment.

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 Court upheld a preliminary objection and struck out grounds 1–4 of the appeal for offending rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, being general and argumentative rather than concise. On the surviving ground, the Court held that the trial judge's statement that the 20-year sentence ran 'from the first day of remand' did not satisfy Article 23(8) of the Constitution, which requires the remand period to be specifically credited, rendering the sentence illegal. The Court set the sentence aside and, exercising its powers under section 11 of the Judicature Act, re-sentenced the appellant to 18 years, 1 month and 26 days' imprisonment after deducting the remand period.

Facts

The appellant performed a sexual act with a girl aged 4 years and 7 months at Lwaweba Village, Maddu Sub-county, Gomba District, on 22 November 2017. He was tried in the High Court at Mpigi, convicted of aggravated defilement contrary to section 129(3) and (4)(a) of the Penal Code Act, and on 26 September 2019 sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence and the victim did not testify. In passing sentence the trial judge stated that the term would run from the first day of remand. The appellant, aged 30 at the time of the offence, was arrested on 22 November 2017 and convicted on 26 September 2019, spending 1 year, 10 months and 4 days in lawful custody. He appealed against both conviction and sentence.

Issues

  1. Whether grounds 1 to 4 of the appeal offended rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules for being general and argumentative rather than concise, and should be struck out.
  2. Whether the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment was illegal for failing to take into account the period the appellant spent on remand as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment was harsh and excessive in the circumstances.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld; grounds 1–4 of the appeal struck out for offending rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  • Sentence of 20 years' imprisonment set aside as illegal.
  • Appellant re-sentenced to 18 years, 1 month and 26 days' imprisonment from the date of conviction.

Key headnotes

Criminal Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Form of Grounds — Rule 66(2)
Grounds of appeal that are general and argumentative rather than concise, and which fail to set out specifically the points of law or fact or mixed law and fact alleged to have been wrongly decided, offend rule 66(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules and are liable to be struck out.
Sentencing — Article 23(8) — Crediting of Remand Period
A sentencing court must specifically take into account and credit the period an accused spent on remand; merely ordering that a sentence run from the first day of remand, without arithmetically deducting that period from the term imposed, does not satisfy Article 23(8) of the Constitution and renders the sentence illegal.
Sentencing — Appellate Re-sentencing — Section 11 of the Judicature Act
Where a sentence is found to be illegal, the Court of Appeal may set it aside and, exercising the powers of the sentencing court under section 11 of the Judicature Act, impose a fresh sentence after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors and the range of sentences in similar cases.
Legal Representation — State Brief — Duty of Advocate (rule 3(a) State Brief Rules)
An advocate appointed on State brief is under a duty to effectively and efficiently represent the appellant under rule 3(a) of the Judicature (Legal Representation at the Expense of the State) Rules, 2022; sloppy drafting of grounds that causes them to be struck out is a neglect of that duty.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Penal Code Act s.129(3)
  • Penal Code Act s.129(4)(a)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I 13-10 r.30(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules S.I 13-10 r.66(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.126(2)(e)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.23(8)
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Judicature (Legal Representation at the Expense of the State) Rules 2022 r.3(a)

Cases cited (14)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Abaasa & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2010)
  • Ninsiima v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1080 of 2010)
  • Candaa Akim v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 2009)
  • German Benjamin v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2010)
  • Sseremba Denis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 2017)
  • Bassita Hussein v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1995)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2016)
  • Ndyaguma v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 2006)
  • Kayanja Hassan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2021)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Abelle v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2016)
  • Ngobya Aloysious v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 2011)
  • Byera Denis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2012)
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.