Wakilii

Abelle v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 66 of 2016)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 96 · 2018 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal against sentence, from a decision of the Court of Appeal
Decision
Appeal dismissed; 18-year sentence of imprisonment upheld; appellant to continue serving the sentence.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 4 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

The question was whether the Court of Appeal complied with Article 23(8) when it substituted an 18-year sentence for life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that Article 23(8) requires a sentencing court to take the remand period into account but does not command an arithmetical deduction; the arithmetical approach in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (3 March 2017) was a guide, not a constitutional requirement, and could not bind the Court of Appeal's earlier decision of 15 December 2016. The Court of Appeal had taken remand into account. Severity of sentence is not appealable to the Supreme Court under section 5(3) of the Judicature Act. The appeal was dismissed and the 18-year sentence upheld.

Facts

The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of aggravated robbery contrary to sections 285 and 286(2) of the Penal Code Act. The High Court at Tororo sentenced him to life imprisonment. On first appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the life sentence on the single ground that the trial court had not taken into account the period spent on remand, and substituted a sentence of 18 years' imprisonment running from the date of the initial High Court sentence. The appellant had been arrested in 2006, released on bail about a year later, had bail cancelled in 2009, and was convicted in 2010, spending about two years on remand. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the 18-year sentence was harsh, illegal and excessive because the two years on remand had not been arithmetically deducted as, he argued, was required by Rwabugande Moses v Uganda.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal complied with Article 23(8) of the Constitution when it sentenced the appellant to 18 years' imprisonment.
  2. Whether the appellant had a right of appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that the sentence was harsh and excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The sentence of 18 years' imprisonment imposed by the Court of Appeal upheld as lawful.
  • The appellant to continue serving the sentence.

Key headnotes

Sentencing — Article 23(8) — Period spent on remand — No arithmetical deduction mandated
Article 23(8) of the Constitution requires a sentencing court to take into account the period an accused spends on remand, but it does not require that this be done in an arithmetical way; it is enough that the court demonstrably considered the remand period.
Sentencing — Remand period — Form over substance — Different wording not a ground for interference
Where a sentencing court has clearly demonstrated that it took the remand period into account to the credit of the convict, an appellate court will not interfere merely because the court used different words or did not expressly state that it deducted the remand period; such matters of style do not amount to non-compliance with Article 23(8).
Doctrine of precedent — Prospective effect — A precedent cannot bind decisions made before it was delivered
A precedent must already be in existence to be followed; accordingly, the rule in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (3 March 2017) that the remand period must be deducted arithmetically does not bind decisions made before that date, including the Court of Appeal decision of 15 December 2016.
Appeals — Supreme Court — Severity of sentence not appealable — Judicature Act s.5(3)
Section 5(3) of the Judicature Act does not permit an appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground of severity of sentence; an appeal against sentence to that Court lies only on a matter of law.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 23(8)
  • Penal Code Act s.285
  • Penal Code Act s.286(2)
  • Judicature Act s.5(3)
  • Prisons Act (Cap 304)

Cases cited (6)

  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Okello Geoffrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2014)
  • Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2001)
  • Kabuye Senyawo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2002)
  • Katende Ahamed v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
  • Bukenya Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2010)
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.