Wakilii

Musasizi Banabus v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2021)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 409 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence from a High Court conviction for murder on a plea bargain
Decision
Appeal dismissed; sentence of 15 years' imprisonment (less 1 year 2 months on remand) upheld

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 dismissed the appeal against sentence. On the preliminary objection that the appeal was filed over two years out of time, the Court held that an informal application for leave to appeal out of time, made in the course of the hearing under rule 43(3)(a) and unopposed, was properly granted, so the objection was overruled. On the merits, the Court held that the trial Judge, who sentenced the appellant to 15 years for murder on a plea bargain and directed that the 1 year 2 months spent on remand be subtracted, had taken the remand period into account as Article 23(8) requires. The sentence was lawful and there was no basis to interfere.

Facts

On 2 December 2017 the deceased, Kawala Jesca Babirye, left home for funeral rites of her late sister. While at the funeral on 4 December 2017 there was talk that the deceased had bewitched her late sister, causing her death. A companion who had stepped away returned to commotion and alarms and saw the appellant holding a panga, which he used to cut off the deceased's hands as she raised them to protect herself. The appellant then cut the deceased on the neck and fled into hiding at a neighbour's house. Police found the deceased unconscious in a pool of blood with both hands severed and wounds to the back and neck; she died the same day while being treated. The appellant was arrested and the panga recovered. He entered a plea bargain agreement with the prosecution, agreeing to a 15-year sentence, and was convicted of murder on his own plea on 6 February 2019.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal should be struck out as incompetent for having been filed out of time without leave of Court.
  2. Whether the trial Judge erred by failing to deduct the period the appellant spent on remand from the sentence, thereby rendering the sentence illegal under Article 23(8) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Appeal dismissed.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal Out of Time — Informal Application During Hearing
An application for leave to appeal out of time may be made informally in the course of a hearing under rule 43(3)(a) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal, and where it is unopposed and granted, an objection that the appeal was filed out of time without leave cannot succeed.
Sentencing — Article 23(8) of the Constitution — Mandatory Account of Time Spent on Remand
Article 23(8) of the Constitution requires a court, when passing sentence, to take into account the period a convict has spent in lawful custody prior to completion of trial, and failure to do so renders the sentence illegal.
Sentencing — Article 23(8) — Compliance Despite Differences of Style or Wording
Where a sentencing court has clearly demonstrated that it took the remand period into account to the credit of the convict, the sentence will not be interfered with merely because the court used different words or did not expressly state that it deducted that period; such matters are issues of style where the constitutional obligation has in effect been complied with.
Sentencing — Appellate Interference — Threshold
An appellate court will only interfere with a sentence imposed by a trial court where the sentence is manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, or where the trial court ignored a material consideration or the sentence was wrong in principle.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Penal Code Act, Cap 120 s.188
  • Penal Code Act, Cap 120 s.189
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 23(8)
  • Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap 122 s.28
  • Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap 122 s.31(1)
  • Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules, 2016
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal rule 30(1)(a)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal rule 43(3)(a)

Cases cited (7)

  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • Kuwange Emmanuel v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 2016)
  • Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
  • Ekonga v Uganda [2023] UGCA 179
  • Kasaija Daudi v Uganda [2014] UGCA 47
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.