Wakilii

Makune Samuel v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 305 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal against sentence only from a High Court conviction for aggravated defilement
Decision
Appeal against sentence dismissed; sentence of 26 years' imprisonment for aggravated defilement upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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, sitting as a first appellate court, dismissed an appeal against sentence only. The appellant had been convicted of aggravated defilement of a 2-year-old and sentenced to 26 years' imprisonment. The Court reaffirmed that it will not interfere with a sentence unless it is illegal, based on a wrong principle, overlooks a material factor, or is manifestly excessive so as to amount to an injustice. While consistency in sentencing is important, each case turns on its own facts. Noting the victim's tender age, the trust relationship, and that the trial Judge sentenced below the guideline starting point of 35 years (range 30 years to death), the Court held the appellant had not shown the sentence was illegal or manifestly excessive, and upheld it.

Facts

The appellant was indicted for aggravated defilement contrary to section 129(2) and (4)(a) of the Penal Code Act. It was alleged that on 22 January 2013 at Kiburara Zone I, Kabarole District, the appellant unlawfully performed a sexual act with KS, a girl aged 2 years. The appellant was staying with the victim's mother, and the victim's aunt (PW2) had entrusted the victim to him. The appellant was 35 years old at the time of the offence. He denied the offence and raised a defence of alibi. The trial Judge convicted him and, treating him as a first offender, taking into account a family he supported and deducting roughly 4 years spent on remand, sentenced him to 26 years' imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence only, contending it was manifestly harsh and excessive.

Issues

  1. Whether the sentence of 26 years' imprisonment imposed on the appellant for aggravated defilement was manifestly harsh and excessive in the circumstances.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Sentence of 26 years' imprisonment upheld.

Key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Trial Court's Sentencing Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed in the exercise of the trial judge's discretion unless the sentence is illegal, the trial court acted on a wrong principle or overlooked a material factor, or the sentence is manifestly excessive so as to amount to an injustice.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Consistency and Uniformity
Consistency and uniformity are vital principles in sentencing requiring equal treatment of similar cases, but each case is determined on its own peculiar facts and sentences in previous cases, while affording material for consideration, are not binding precedents.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Aggravated Defilement — Sentencing Range
Under Guideline 19 of the Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013, the sentence range for aggravated defilement is 30 years' imprisonment up to death, with a starting point of 35 years; a sentence imposed below that starting point is not manifestly excessive.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Aggravated Defilement — Aggravating Factors — Tender Age and Breach of Trust
The tender age of a victim of aggravated defilement, coupled with a relationship of trust between the offender and the victim, aggravates the gravity of the offence and supports a deterrent custodial sentence.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Duty of First Appellate Court
On a first appeal the parties are entitled to the appellate court's own decision on issues of fact and law; the court must review and re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions, making allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.129(2)
  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.129(4)(a)
  • Judicature Act Cap 16 s.11
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.10
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.30(1)(a)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Guideline 19

Cases cited (24)

  • Pandya Vs R (1957) EA 336
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • R Vs Havilland (1983) 5 Cr. App. (s) 109
  • Kamya Johnson Wavamuno v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2000)
  • Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2005)
  • [2018] UGSC 49
  • Evaristo Okora v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2012)
  • Friday Yasin v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2012)
  • Taremwa Apollo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2014)
  • Bonyo Abdul v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2011)
  • Bachwa Benon v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2017)
  • Anguyo George v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2014)
  • Bashir Burahuri v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2015)
  • Othieno John v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2017)
  • Senoga Frank Vs Uganda, CACA 74
  • Anguyo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2014)
  • Opio Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2010)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Father Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Ors v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 170 of 2002)
  • Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Mbunya Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
  • Kasibante Ssemanda Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2015)
  • Twinamasiko Peter v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2010)
  • Kabagambe Yoweri v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2015)
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.