Wakilii

Arinaitwe v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 21 of 2016)

Supreme Court · [2019] UGSC 78 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal against sentence only, from a Court of Appeal decision upholding a High Court conviction and sentence for murder
Decision
Appeal dismissed; 18-year sentence of imprisonment for murder upheld

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 dismissed the appeal and upheld the 18-year sentence for murder. The trial judge's statement that he sentenced the appellant 'having taken away the 2 years' on remand satisfied the Article 23(8) requirement that remand time be deducted; 'taking away' and 'deducting' mean the same thing. The principle in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda does not bind sentences passed before 31 March 2017, and this sentence pre-dated that date. An appellate court will not interfere with sentencing discretion absent failure to exercise discretion, failure to consider a material factor, or an error in principle, none of which was shown.

Facts

The deceased, Katahwire Erinekiro, operated a bar. After he closed it, the appellant, who had been drinking there, followed him, assaulted him and injured him critically. While undergoing treatment the deceased made a dying declaration stating that the appellant had attacked and injured him, and he died of the injuries. The appellant was charged with murder, tried, convicted and sentenced by the High Court at Bushenyi to 18 years' imprisonment. In passing sentence the trial judge stated that he imposed 18 years 'having taken away the 2 years' the appellant had spent on remand. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against sentence only; that court upheld the conviction and sentence. He then appealed to the Supreme Court against sentence, contending the remand period was not deducted and that the sentence was harsh and excessive.

Issues

  1. Whether the period the appellant spent on remand was deducted from the sentence as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the sentence of 18 years' imprisonment was illegal, harsh and manifestly excessive.
  3. Whether an appellate court should interfere with the trial court's exercise of sentencing discretion.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Sentence of 18 years' imprisonment imposed by the High Court and confirmed by the Court of Appeal upheld.

Key headnotes

Criminal Sentencing — Article 23(8) — Deduction of Remand Period
A trial judge's statement that a sentence is imposed 'having taken away' the period spent on remand satisfies the mandatory requirement in Article 23(8) of the Constitution that remand time be deducted; 'taking away' and 'deducting' bear the same meaning in ordinary English.
Criminal Sentencing — Temporal Scope of the Rwabugande Principle
The principle in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda concerning deduction of the remand period does not bind courts in respect of sentences passed before 31 March 2017.
Criminal Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Sentencing Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's exercise of sentencing discretion unless there was a failure to exercise the discretion, a failure to take into account a material consideration, or an error in principle.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Penal Code Act Cap.120 s.188
  • Penal Code Act Cap.120 s.189
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 23(8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • Kamya Johnson Wavamuno v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2002)
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.