Wakilii

Nyesiga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 275 of 2021)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 110 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence from a High Court conviction on a plea of guilty
Decision
Appeal dismissed; sentence confirmed, with the appellant to serve 21 years and 6 months from the date of sentencing after deduction of the remand period.

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 appealed the 25-year sentence imposed for the aggravated defilement of a three-year-old victim, arguing it was manifestly excessive and that the trial Judge failed to deduct his remand period. The Court of Appeal held that an appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed in the exercise of the trial court's discretion unless it is manifestly excessive, on a wrong principle, or ignores a material consideration. As the maximum penalty for aggravated defilement is death, 25 years for defiling a three-year-old was not excessive. On remand, the Court held the trial Judge had ordered deduction of the remand period; for clarity, the appellant is to serve 21 years and 6 months from the date of sentencing. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

On 21 April 2018 at about 11:00 pm in Nansana, the victim's mother left her three-year-old daughter in the sitting room with the appellant, who was watching television. On her return she noticed the appellant's trouser zip was undone, checked the child's private parts and found sperm. The child told her mother what the appellant had done. The father reported the matter to police. On examination the victim was found to have bruises on her genitals and tears to the hymen, injuries assessed as caused by an erect penis. The appellant was charged with aggravated defilement, pleaded guilty, was convicted by the High Court (Joyce Kavuma J.) and sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment. He had been on remand for about three years and six months. He appealed against the sentence only.

Issues

  1. Whether the sentence of 25 years' imprisonment for aggravated defilement was harsh and manifestly excessive.
  2. Whether the trial Judge failed to offset the period spent on remand, thereby passing an illegal sentence.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • For clarity, the appellant shall serve 21 years and 6 months' imprisonment from the date of sentencing.

Key headnotes

Sentencing — Appellate 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, or the trial court ignored a material consideration or sentenced on a wrong principle.
Sentencing — Aggravated defilement — Whether sentence excessive
A sentence of 25 years' imprisonment for aggravated defilement of a three-year-old victim is not harsh or manifestly excessive, the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence being death.
Sentencing — Period spent on remand — Arithmetical deduction
The period spent on remand must be taken into account arithmetically; since that period is known with certainty, the court must specifically deduct and credit it to the convict, and should state the resulting term to be served.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Penal Code Act s.129(3)
  • Penal Code Act s.129(4)(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 23(8)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions Guideline 6(a)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions Guideline 6(c)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions Guideline 15
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions Guideline 35(d)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions Guideline 35(i)
  • Judicature Act s.11

Cases cited (10)

  • Kalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • R v Haviland (1983) 5 Cr App R(S) 109
  • Abaikundiro Yustina v Uganda (Criminal Case No. 27 of 2015)
  • Tiborulnnga Emmanuel u Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2Ol4
  • Kivalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • James s/o Yorom v R (1950) 18 EACA 147
  • Bgera Denis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2012)
  • Makuba Alimaks v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 2019)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Nashimolo 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.