Wakilii

Latif Buulo v Uganda [2019] UGSC 68

Supreme Court · 2019 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Supreme Court against sentence, from a Court of Appeal decision
Decision
Appeal dismissed; sentence of 25 years imprisonment upheld.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's second appeal against a 25-year sentence for murder. The Court held that the requirement to arithmetically deduct the period spent on remand, established in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda, applies only to sentences passed after that decision on 3 March 2017; for sentences imposed earlier it sufficed that the sentencing court demonstrated it had taken the remand period into account. As the appellant was sentenced by the mitigation Judge in 2013, before Rwabugande, the Court of Appeal had not erred in reducing the sentence to 25 years on the basis that remand had been considered. The Court also clarified that the appellant spent only one year on remand, not nine.

Facts

On 17 August 2004, at Namabwa Village, Namanyonyi Sub-County, Mbale District, the appellant went to the home of Ahamad Lubale (the deceased) to collect his wife, who had eloped with the deceased. At about 10:00pm the appellant entered the deceased's house through the rear door, found a panga in the bedroom, and used it to cut the deceased to death. He was arrested on 18 August 2004, charged with murder on 21 August 2004, and on 19 July 2005 was tried, convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court at Mbale. Following Susan Kigula and 417 Others v Attorney General, the matter was placed before a mitigation Judge, who in November 2013 substituted a sentence of 30 years imprisonment for the death sentence. The Court of Appeal reduced that sentence to 25 years imprisonment. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending the sentence remained harsh because the period he spent on remand had not been deducted.

Issues

  1. Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law and fact when they sentenced the appellant to 25 years imprisonment without considering the period spent on remand.

Orders

  • Sentence of 25 years imprisonment upheld.
  • Appeal dismissed.

Key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Remand Period — Temporal Application of Rwabugande
The requirement to arithmetically deduct the period spent on remand, established in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda, applies only to sentences passed after that decision of 3 March 2017; for sentences imposed before that date it is sufficient that the sentencing court demonstrated that it took the remand period into account.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Meaning of Remand Period
Remand is the time spent in prison in lawful custody before the completion of trial; time spent in prison after conviction is post-trial time and does not constitute remand time.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — 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, the trial court ignored an important matter that ought to have been considered, or the sentence is so manifestly excessive or low as to amount to an injustice.
Constitutional Law — Article 23(8) — Taking Remand Period into Account
Article 23(8) of the Constitution requires that, where a person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, any period spent in lawful custody in respect of the offence before completion of trial be taken into account in imposing the term of imprisonment.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 23(8)
  • Judicature Act s.5(3)

Cases cited (11)

  • Susan Kigula and 417 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2006)
  • Tukamuhebwa David Junior & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2016)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Twinomugisha Alex & 2 Ors v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2002)
  • Abelle Assuman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
  • 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)
  • Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Jackson Zita v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1995)
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.