Kuloba & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 29 of 2017)
The full judgment
Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 for simple robbery, the Supreme Court held that a sentence expressed as a term of twenty years 'in prison' rather than 'imprisonment' is a legal sentence; the wording does not render it illegal, so the first ground failed. The alternative ground, challenging the appellants' continued detention and the prison authorities' administration of remission, raised no matter of law within Section 5(3) of the Judicature Act, which confines an appeal against sentence to questions of law and not severity; it was therefore dismissed. The Court clarified that under Section 84 of the Prisons Act 2006 the appellants remain eligible to earn remission for industry and good conduct.
Facts
On 29 August 2001 at about midnight a gang of robbers attacked the home of Deborah Kutosi (PW1) and Nandutu Kitosi (PW2). PW1 identified the first appellant and PW2 identified the second appellant among the gang. The assailants demanded money and made off with cash and assorted household items. The appellants were tried and convicted by the High Court at Mbale of aggravated robbery contrary to Sections 272 and 273(2) of the Penal Code Act and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Court of Appeal substituted a conviction for simple robbery contrary to Sections 272 and 273(1)(b) of the Penal Code Act and, taking into account the two years and seven months each had spent on remand, sentenced each appellant to twenty years in prison.
Issues
- Whether a sentence expressed as a term 'in prison' rather than 'imprisonment' is illegal.
- Whether the appellants' continued detention, after the date they claimed they should have been released with remission, is unlawful and a matter that can be raised on appeal to the Supreme Court.
Orders
- Ground one dismissed for want of merit.
- Alternative ground two dismissed for raising no matter of law under Section 5(3) of the Judicature Act.
- Appeal dismissed.
Key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Penal Code Act s.272
- Penal Code Act s.273(2)
- Penal Code Act s.273(1)(b)
- Penal Code Act s.286(1)(b)
- Judicature Act s.11
- Judicature Act s.5(3)
- Prisons Act 2006 s.84
- Prisons Act (Cap 304) s.47
- Prisons Rules S.I Rule 99