Wakilii

Bwembi v Uganda [2019] UGSC 22

Supreme Court · 2019 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court against sentence only, from the Court of Appeal's confirmation of a High Court sentence of life imprisonment for murder
Decision
Appeal dismissed; sentence of life imprisonment confirmed and the appellant to continue serving it

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

On a second appeal against sentence only, the Supreme Court held that under section 5(3) of the Judicature Act an appeal lies only on the legality of the sentence, not its severity, so the appellant's complaint that life imprisonment was harsh and excessive was incompetent. On the legality challenge, the Court found that the trial Judge had expressly taken into account the three years spent on remand and weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors before exercising her discretion to impose life imprisonment, a sentence confirmed by the Court of Appeal. Following Abelle Asuman v Uganda, differences in wording do not amount to failure to consider remand. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

Facts

The appellant and the deceased were husband and wife who had lived together for about two years before the deceased separated and returned to her parents in Jinja District. On 5 October 2005, the deceased, returning from harvesting potatoes, met the appellant, who asked her to come to the matrimonial home to wash clothes. She was reluctant and resisted, but the appellant pulled her along the path, threatening consequences if she refused. A scuffle ensued, during which the appellant used a panga he was carrying to cut the deceased on the head. After she fell, he continued to hack at different parts of her body. A witness who watched from a distance raised an alarm, causing the appellant to flee. People came to the deceased's aid and took her to hospital, where she was admitted for about three weeks before succumbing to tetanus and septicaemia, dying of respiratory failure. The appellant was convicted of murder by the High Court and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant, appealing only against sentence, had a right of appeal to the Supreme Court under section 5(3) of the Judicature Act on grounds that the sentence was harsh and manifestly excessive.
  2. Whether the sentence of life imprisonment was illegal for failure of the trial court and the Court of Appeal to consider the mitigating factors and the period of three years spent on remand under Article 23(8) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The appellant shall continue serving the sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Second Appeal Against Sentence — Scope under Judicature Act s.5(3)
On a second appeal to the Supreme Court against sentence, an appeal lies only on a matter of law touching the legality of the sentence and not on its severity; a ground complaining that a sentence is harsh and manifestly excessive is incompetent and will be dismissed.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Trial Court's Discretion
An appellate court will not normally interfere with the sentencing discretion of the trial judge unless the sentence is illegal or is manifestly so excessive or so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice.
Constitutional Law — Article 23(8) — Crediting Time Spent on Remand in Sentencing
Where a sentencing court has clearly demonstrated that it took into account the period spent on remand to the credit of the convict, the sentence will not be interfered with merely because the sentencing judge or justices used different words; this is a matter of style for which a court will not be faulted.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Judicature Act s.4
  • Judicature Act s.5(3)
  • Judicature Act s.7
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 23(8)

Cases cited (11)

  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • Aharikunda Yustina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
  • Suzan Kigula Seremba v Uganda (HCT-00-CR-SC-0115-2011)
  • Jackie Uwera Nsenga v Uganda (Nakawa High Court Criminal Session No. 0312 of 2013)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Tigo Stephen v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2009)
  • Obote William v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Ogalo s/o Owoura v R (1954) 21 EACA 270
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2001)
  • Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
  • Jamada Nzabaikukize v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2015)
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.