Twesigye v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 178 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 148 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Criminal appeal against sentence only, from a High Court conviction and sentence for murder

Decision

Appeal dismissed; sentence of 32½ years' imprisonment for murder upheld

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 dismissed the appeal against sentence. On the first ground, it held the 32½-year term fell within the murder sentencing range of 30 years to death under the Third Schedule to the Sentencing Guidelines, reflected the mitigating and aggravating factors, and disclosed no wrong principle, so it was neither harsh nor excessive. On the second ground, it held that because the sentence was passed on 20 May 2015, before Rwabugande Moses v Uganda, the trial judge was not required to arithmetically deduct the remand period; taking remand into account non-mathematically satisfied Article 23(8) of the Constitution. The sentence was upheld.

Facts

On 8 September 2012, at about 8:00am, the deceased was found dead near her father's residence. The deceased's father suspected the appellant, Twesigye Stephen, and a co-suspect, who had previously issued threats against the deceased. Both were arrested, and on arrest the appellant confessed to the offence. A post-mortem examination established the cause of death as respiratory failure secondary to neck strangulation. The appellant was indicted for murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act. On the indictment being read at the High Court at Mbarara, he pleaded guilty and was convicted, and the trial judge sentenced him to 32½ years' imprisonment on 20 May 2015. In sentencing, the judge noted the murder was brutal and well planned, that the appellant had pleaded guilty and saved the court's time, and that he had been on remand for 2½ years. The appellant appealed against sentence only.

Issues

Whether the sentence of 32½ years' imprisonment imposed for murder was harsh and excessive so as to warrant appellate interference.
Whether the trial judge erred by failing to deduct or take into account the period the appellant had spent on remand.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
Sentence of 32½ years' imprisonment upheld.

Key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Appellate interference with a trial court's 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 acted on a wrong principle, or it overlooked a material factor that ought to have been considered.

Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Murder — Applicable sentencing range

Under the Third Schedule to the Sentencing Guidelines, the sentencing range for murder runs from thirty years' imprisonment to the death penalty, subject to the consideration of both mitigating and aggravating factors.

Constitutional Law — Article 23(8) — Remand period — Non-retrospectivity of Rwabugande Moses

The requirement in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda that a sentencing court arithmetically deduct the period spent on remand does not apply retrospectively to sentences passed before that decision; such earlier sentences are valid where the trial court took the remand period into account in conformity with the law applicable at the time.

Constitutional Law — Article 23(8) — Methods of accounting for time spent on remand

A sentencing court may comply with Article 23(8) of the Constitution either by taking the remand period into account using a non-mathematical approach or by deducting it through an arithmetical calculation; both approaches are constitutional, and a sentence will not be interfered with merely because the court used different words or did not state that it deducted the remand period.

Legislation cited (6)

Penal Code Act s.188
Penal Code Act s.189
Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 23(8)
Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.30(1)(a)
Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 reg.15(2)
Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Third Schedule

Cases cited (21)

Wabwire Iddi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2015)
John Kasimbazi and others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 2013)
Rwalinda John v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2015)
Kato Kajubi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2014)
Sekandi Hassan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2015)
Mwikirize William v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2014)
Kapinda Boniface & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 108 and 98 of 2011)
Florence Abbo Vs Uganda CACA No. 0168
Tomusange Lasto & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2015)
Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
Aharikundira Yusitina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
Muhoozi & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2014)
Kaweesa Abdul v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2014)
Twongyeirwe John v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2013)
Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2001)
Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
Sebunya Robert & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2016)
Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2018)
Muyitira Sande v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2013)

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.