Kibenge Isaac v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 2021)

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Holding

On appeal against sentence only, the appellant contended that his thirty-year sentence for murder was harsh and manifestly excessive because the trial Judge failed to apply uniformity in sentencing. The Court of Appeal held that consistency requires courts to avoid unjustified disparity but does not eliminate the trial Judge's discretion to impose a sentence fitting the particular crime and offender; an appellate court will not interfere merely because another court might have imposed a lesser penalty. Since the starting point for murder under the 2013 Sentencing Guidelines is thirty-five years to death, a thirty-year sentence fell within the permissible range. The appellant failed to show any wrong principle, overlooked factor, or miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

The appellant was indicted and convicted of murder contrary to sections 171 and 172 of the Penal Code Act for the death of Wambi Samuel at Lubembe fishing village, Mukono, on 14 June 2016. The prosecution case was that the appellant's motorcycle had been impounded over a debt and released after he said he had a customer that evening from whom he expected to clear the debt. Prosecution witnesses saw the appellant in the deceased's company that evening and night. The following morning the deceased was found bleeding with multiple cut wounds to the head and named the appellant as the person who had attacked him and taken UGX 3,000,000 and his phone. The deceased died hours later from blood loss; a postmortem confirmed an open head injury with deep scalp cuts. The appellant denied the offence and raised an alibi. The trial Judge convicted him and imposed a thirty-year sentence, reduced to twenty-five years and four months after deducting remand time. The appeal challenged the sentence only.

Issues

1. Whether the sentence of thirty years' imprisonment imposed for murder was harsh and manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the trial Judge erred by failing to apply the principle of consistency or uniformity in sentencing.

Orders

• The appeal is dismissed.
• The sentence of thirty (30) years' imprisonment, resulting in twenty-five (25) years and four (4) months after deducting time spent on remand, is upheld.

Key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Penal Code Act, Cap 128 s.171
• Penal Code Act, Cap 128 s.172
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10 r.30(1)(a)
• Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013 para.5(a)

Cases cited (19)

• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
• R v Haviland (1983) 5 Cr. App. R (S) 109
• Aharikundira Yusitina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
• Atiku Lino v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2009)
• Sam Oyita v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 2010)
• Kahonaho Nasasira David v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2014)
• Atukwasa Jonan & 6 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2018)
• Kiwalabye v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
• Kamya Johnson Wavamunno v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2000)
• Kadu Kavulu Lawrence v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2015)
• Opolot Justine & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2014)
• Muhoozi Denis & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2014)
• Karisa Moses v Uganda SCCA No. 2 j of 2016
• Sesemaganda Sperito & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2016)
• Florence Abbo v tJganda CACA No. 168 of 201i
• Twongteirwe John v Uganda CACA No. 201 of20lj
• Katureebe John alias Kongo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2012)
• Wasaija Alex v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 487 of 2017)