Wakilii

Kibirango Julius v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 44 · 2026 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence only from a High Court conviction entered on a plea of guilty.
Decision
Appeal against sentence allowed; illegal sentence set aside and appellant re-sentenced to 10 years and 4 months' imprisonment from 6 February 2018.

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 appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated defilement and was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment expressed as 'period spent on remand inclusive'. The Court of Appeal held that this wording was ambiguous and failed to clearly demonstrate that the trial judge took the remand period into account, rendering the sentence illegal under Article 23(8) of the Constitution as interpreted in Rwabugande and Abelle Asuman. The appeal against sentence was allowed and the sentence set aside. Re-sentencing under s.11 of the Judicature Act, the court confirmed 15 years as appropriate, deducted the approximately 4 years and 8 months spent on remand, and substituted a term of 10 years and 4 months' imprisonment from the date of conviction.

Facts

During June 2013 at Jogo Goma in Mukono District, the appellant performed a sexual act on a girl aged 8 years (referred to as 'NG'). He was charged with aggravated defilement contrary to sections 129(3) and (4)(b) of the Penal Code Act. The appellant pleaded guilty, was convicted on his own plea, and on 6 February 2018 the High Court at Mukono sentenced him to 15 years' imprisonment, expressed to be 'period spent on remand inclusive'. The appellant had spent approximately 4 years and 8 months on remand before sentencing. He appealed solely against sentence, contending the term was illegal because the trial judge did not arithmetically deduct, or clearly demonstrate she had taken into account, the remand period as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution. The respondent conceded the sentence was illegal on that ground.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial court imposed an illegal sentence by failing to take into account the period the appellant spent on remand as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution.
  2. If the sentence was illegal, the appropriate sentence to impose on re-sentencing for aggravated defilement.

Orders

  • The sentence of 15 years' imprisonment imposed by the High Court for aggravated defilement is set aside as illegal.
  • The appellant is re-sentenced to 10 years and 4 months' imprisonment, commencing from 6 February 2018, after deducting the approximately 4 years and 8 months spent on remand from the appropriate term of 15 years.

Key headnotes

Sentencing — Article 23(8) of the Constitution — Crediting of remand period
A sentencing court must clearly demonstrate that it has taken the period spent on remand into account to the convict's credit; while arithmetical deduction is the guiding approach, a court that has manifestly complied need not use particular words, but an ambiguous expression that does not show the remand period was credited renders the sentence illegal.
Sentencing — Illegal sentence — Wording 'sentence inclusive of remand'
A sentence expressed as a term of imprisonment 'period spent on remand inclusive' is too ambiguous to demonstrate compliance with the constitutional obligation to credit the remand period, and is therefore illegal and liable to be set aside on appeal.
Appellate sentencing — Re-sentencing powers — Section 11 of the Judicature Act
On allowing an appeal against an illegal sentence, the Court of Appeal may exercise the powers of the court of original jurisdiction under section 11 of the Judicature Act to re-sentence, fixing the appropriate term by reference to comparable cases and the principle of uniformity, then arithmetically deducting the remand period.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Penal Code Act [Cap. 120] s.129(3) and (4)(b)
  • Trial on Indictment Act s.132(1)(b)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.23(8)
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013 (Legal Notice No. 8 of 2013), Principle No. 6(c)

Cases cited (10)

  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • Kamya Johnson Wavamuno v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2000)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
  • Kabwiso Issa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2002)
  • Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
  • Taremwa Apollo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2014)
  • Minsiima Gilbert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0180 of 2010)
  • Tureshwomugize Gideon v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 2014)
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.