Wakilii

Osherura & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 50 of 2015)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 24 · 2018 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court against sentence, from the Court of Appeal's dismissal of an appeal against the High Court's sentence for murder
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the 25-year sentences of imprisonment imposed by the High Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal were confirmed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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

On a second appeal against sentence, the Supreme Court held that an appellant cannot argue before it a ground not raised before the Court of Appeal without leave under rule 98(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, and upheld a preliminary objection to the confession re-evaluation ground. On sentence, the Court held the 25-year terms for murder were legal and not harsh: the trial judge had expressly taken the remand period into account as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution, and the lower courts could not be faulted for not applying Rwabugande Moses, decided in 2017, after they had ruled. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

On 22 February 2009 at about 8:00pm the deceased was selling local brew (tonto and waragi) at a bar in Kibwera Trading Centre. A white saloon car (registration UAK 614M) carrying four occupants arrived; an occupant bought tonto and the car drove off towards Isingiro Town. At about 9:30pm the same car returned and parked next to the bar. Two passengers entered, bought tonto, then pulled the deceased outside and assaulted her with a panga, inflicting deep cut wounds to her head, legs and shoulders. Her alarm was answered by her husband and daughter, who found her unconscious in a pool of blood. She died on the way to Mbarara Hospital that night. Investigations showed the car belonged to one Begumisa of Kisiizi and had been hired to the first appellant. Both appellants were arrested and made charge-and-caution statements admitting participation in the murder. They were tried, convicted and sentenced by the High Court to 25 years' imprisonment each.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellants could argue before the Supreme Court a ground concerning the admissibility and re-evaluation of their confessions that had not been raised before the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the sentence of 25 years' imprisonment was harsh, illegal or excessive for failing to take into account the period spent on remand and other mitigating factors.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal are upheld.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Second Appeals — Grounds Not Raised Before the Court of Appeal
An appellant may not argue before the Supreme Court a ground that was neither advanced nor considered in the Court of Appeal without first obtaining leave of the court under rule 98(a) of the Supreme Court Rules; it is an error to fault the Justices of Appeal for failing to deal with a complaint never placed before them.
Sentencing — Article 23(8) — Crediting Time Spent on Remand
A sentence arrived at without taking into account the period spent in lawful custody before completion of trial is illegal for non-compliance with Article 23(8) of the Constitution; that period must be specifically credited to the accused by an arithmetical deduction from the final sentence.
Sentencing — Appellate Interference With Trial Court's Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed in the exercise of a trial court's discretion unless the sentence is manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, or the trial court ignored an important matter, or the sentence is wrong in principle.
Precedent — Temporal Application of Later Authority to Earlier Decisions
Lower courts cannot be faulted for failing to apply a decision that had not yet been rendered when they ruled; their decisions are not rendered illegal by a subsequent authority where they did not in fact depart from the constitutional provision the later authority interprets.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 23(8)
  • Supreme Court Rules rule 98(a)

Cases cited (6)

  • Euchu Michael v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2000)
  • Twinomugisha Alex alias Twine, Patrick Kwezi and John Sanyu Katuramu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2002)
  • Bogere Assimwe Moses and Senyonga Sunday v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2016)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Attorney General v Uganda Law Society (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2006)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
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.