Wakilii

Alidriga Majid v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 89 · 2026 Sentence Reduced ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence only from a High Court murder conviction
Decision
Appeal against sentence allowed; 35-year sentence set aside and substituted with 25 years, reduced to 23 years after deducting the two years spent on remand.

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, convicted of murdering his brother, appealed only against his 35-year sentence as manifestly harsh and excessive. The Court of Appeal held that sentencing is a discretionary matter with which it interferes only where the sentence is illegal, based on a wrong principle, manifestly excessive, or where consistency with comparable cases is not maintained. Reviewing comparable murder sentences, the Court found the 35-year term disproportionate. It set aside that sentence, substituted 25 years, and deducted the two years spent on remand under Article 23(8) of the Constitution, leaving 23 years' imprisonment to run from the date of conviction.

Facts

On 7 July 2014 at Elekile Village, Yumbe District, the appellant killed his brother, Angufi Siraj, following a long-standing land dispute. During a quarrel in the garden, the appellant took his bow and arrows and followed the deceased to his home, where he shot him. An arrow penetrated the deceased's stomach, causing severe internal injuries and excessive bleeding, and he later died in hospital. On learning of his brother's death, the appellant reported himself to the police. He was tried in the High Court at Arua, convicted of murder under sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act, and sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment. He was a first offender, aged 22 at the time of the offence, married with two children, and had spent two years on remand. He appealed against the sentence only.

Issues

  1. Whether the sentence of 35 years' imprisonment imposed by the trial court was illegal, manifestly harsh and excessive so as to warrant appellate interference.

Orders

  • The sentence of 35 years' imprisonment imposed by the trial court is set aside.
  • A sentence of 25 years' imprisonment is substituted as appropriate in the circumstances.
  • The two years spent on remand are deducted, leaving the appellant to serve 23 years' imprisonment.
  • The sentence shall run from the date of conviction by the trial court.

Key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Sentence
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed in the exercise of the trial court's discretion unless the sentence is illegal, based on a wrong principle, manifestly excessive or inadequate, or the court ignored a relevant factor or considered an irrelevant one, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Consistency with Comparable Cases
Consistency is a cardinal principle of sentencing requiring that like cases be treated alike without unjustifiable disparity; an appellate court must examine whether the impugned sentence is consistent with those imposed in comparable cases and intervene where a manifest disparity would occasion injustice.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Deduction of Remand Period under Article 23(8)
Article 23(8) of the Constitution requires a court to take into account the period an accused has spent on remand when sentencing; the words "take into account" do not compel a precise mathematical deduction of that period from the sentence imposed.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Guideline 6(c)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Guideline 19
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Third Schedule
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.23(8)

Cases cited (31)

  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Kato Kajubi Godfrey -v- Uganda, SCCA No. 2Ol2O14
  • Atuku Margret Opii v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2008)
  • Twikireze v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0754 of 2014)
  • Rwabugande -v- Uganda, (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2O17) UGCA 8
  • Magala Ramadhan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2014)
  • Muhereza Bosco & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 065 of 2011)
  • Kaija Stephen v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2016)
  • Habib Salim v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2016)
  • Magezi Gad v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
  • Sunday Gordon v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0103 of 2016)
  • Karisa Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2015)
  • Kobusheshe Karaveri v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2008)
  • James s/o Yoram v Rex (1950) 18 EACA 147
  • Nashimolo Paul Kibolo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2017)
  • Katende Ahmed v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2004)
  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 335
  • Ruwala v R [1957] EA 570
  • Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32
  • Okethi Okale -v- Republic [1955] EA 555
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda [1998] UGSC 22
  • Ogalo s/o Owuora v R (1954) 21 EACA 270
  • Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
  • Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1995)
  • Mbunya Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
  • Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Muhwezi Bayon v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2013)
  • Baliruno v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 2019)
  • Musana v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2015)
  • Bayo Sunday v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 2019)
  • Simbwa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2011)
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.