Wakilii

Shikanga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 153 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 71 · 2025 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence only, by leave under s.131(1)(b) Trial on Indictments Act, from a High Court conviction on a plea of guilty.
Decision
Sentence of 25 years declared illegal and set aside; appellant re-sentenced to 21 years and 2 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently from 22 April 2015.

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 of Appeal held that the trial judge's statement that the 25-year sentence 'shall not include' / 'shall exclude' the remand period was ambiguous and meant the period was not taken into account, contravening Article 23(8) of the Constitution and rendering the sentence illegal. Invoking section 11 of the Judicature Act, the Court re-sentenced. It found the 25-year terms for murder and aggravated robbery neither harsh nor excessive given the brutal facts and the appellant's status as a habitual offender already serving a robbery term, but deducted the 3 years 10 months spent on remand, ordering him to serve 21 years 2 months on each count concurrently from 22 April 2015.

Facts

On 3 June 2011, at Wanyera Cell, Mbale Municipality, the appellant unlawfully caused the death of Namugowa Dickson and robbed him of property including a Nokia phone, using a panga immediately before or after the robbery. He was indicted for murder and aggravated robbery and convicted in the High Court at Mbale on his own plea of guilty. The trial judge noted the appellant pleaded guilty, saving the court's time, but was not a first-time offender, then serving a 15-year term for aggravated robbery imposed at Mbale High Court, making him a habitual offender. He was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. In passing sentence the judge stated that the 25 years 'shall not include' / 'shall exclude' the period spent on remand, without stating that period. The appellant had spent 3 years and 10 months on remand.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge's exclusion of the remand period from the sentence rendered the sentence illegal for non-compliance with Article 23(8) of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the sentence of 25 years' imprisonment on each count was manifestly harsh and excessive.

Orders

  • The sentence of 25 years' imprisonment on each count was found illegal for contravening Article 23(8) of the Constitution and set aside.
  • The Court, exercising the trial court's sentencing powers under section 11 of the Judicature Act, found 25 years' imprisonment on each count neither harsh nor excessive.
  • The period of 3 years and 10 months spent on remand was deducted on each count.
  • The appellant is to serve 21 years and 2 months' imprisonment on the count of murder and 21 years and 2 months on the count of aggravated robbery.
  • The sentences shall run concurrently from 22 April 2015, the date of conviction.

Key headnotes

Sentencing — Remand period — Compliance with Article 23(8) of the Constitution
A sentencing court must take into account the period a convict has spent on remand; an order that the sentence 'shall not include' or 'shall exclude' the remand period is ambiguous, amounts to a failure to take that period into account, and renders the sentence illegal under Article 23(8) of the Constitution.
Sentencing — Illegal sentence — Appellate re-sentencing under section 11 of the Judicature Act
Where a trial court's sentence contravenes Article 23(8) and is illegal, an appellate court may invoke section 11 of the Judicature Act to exercise the same sentencing powers as the trial court and impose a fresh, lawful sentence.
Sentencing — Appellate interference with sentence
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed by the trial court unless the sentence is illegal or founded on a wrong principle of law, the trial court failed to consider a material factor, or the sentence is harsh and manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
Article 23(8) — Deduction of remand period from sentence
Compliance with Article 23(8) requires the period spent on remand to be deducted from the otherwise appropriate sentence, and a sentence imposed by a court should not be ambiguous.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Penal Code Act s.285
  • Penal Code Act s.286(2)
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.131(1)(b)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 23(8)
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for the Courts of Judicature)(Practice) Directions 2013, Guideline 15

Cases cited (25)

  • Aharikundira v Uganda [2018] UGSC 49
  • Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda [1994] UGSC 17
  • Naturinda Tamson v Uganda [2015] UGCA 3
  • Jagenda John v Uganda [2022] UGCA 25
  • Kawuli Robert v Uganda [2024] UGCA 83
  • Attorney General v Susan Kigula and 417 Others [2009] UGSC 6
  • Kyewalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Kizito Senkula v Uganda [2002] UGSC 35
  • Luutu v Uganda [2024] UGCA 268
  • Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 066 of 2016)
  • Abelle Asuman v Uganda [2018] UGSC 96
  • Rwabugande v Uganda [2017] UGSC 8
  • Byaruhanga Akot v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 078 of 2010)
  • Sebuliba Siraji v Uganda [2014] UGCA 123
  • Florence Abbo v Uganda [2023] UGCA 17
  • Bakubye & Anor v Uganda [2018] UGSC 5
  • Mangero Patrick v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 075 of 2019)
  • Tugume alias Macombero v Uganda [2020] UGCA 107
  • Aria Angelo v Uganda [2022] UGCA 15
  • Bashir Ssali v Uganda [2005] UGSC 21
  • Bigirimana Vincent v Uganda [2019] UGCA 221
  • Guloba Rogers v Uganda [2021] UGCA 16
  • Bandebaho Benon v Uganda [2016] UGCA 55
  • Mushabe Daniel v Uganda [2024] UGCA 315
  • Bakubye Muzamiru and Anor v Uganda [2018] UGSC 17
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.