Wakilii

Turyahabwe & 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 25 of 2016)

Supreme Court · [2019] UGSC 86 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court against sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal
Decision
Appeal against sentence dismissed; the Court of Appeal's sentences of seven years on each count, to run consecutively, 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

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against sentence. On the consecutive-sentence ground, it held that under section 2(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act the general rule for distinct offences is consecutive sentences, ordering concurrency being a matter of judicial discretion; the Court of Appeal's reasoning was apparent and disclosed no error. On the remand ground, it held that the arithmetic-deduction requirement in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (3 March 2017) could not bind the Court of Appeal's earlier decision of 28 October 2016, because a precedent must exist before it can be followed. The Court of Appeal correctly applied the pre-Rwabugande law and had taken the 2 years 8 months remand period into account.

Facts

On 26 September 2010 at about 9:30pm at Mukatojo cell, Kabale District, the four appellants robbed Twinomuhangi Pastori of Shs. 200,000, one US dollar, a Nokia 1680 mobile phone and a wallet containing identity documents, using a panga. When the victim raised an alarm the appellants fled. The victim recognised the appellants as assailants he already knew and named them to those who responded to the alarm. A police dog led police to the home of the third appellant, who was found hiding under his bed; he was arrested and some stolen items, including a blood-stained panga, were recovered and exhibited at trial. The other appellants were arrested afterwards. The High Court at Kabale convicted all four of aggravated robbery and attempted murder, sentencing each to seven years on each count to run consecutively. On appeal, the Court of Appeal vacated the sentences for failure to consider remand time, then imposed identical consecutive sentences, having noted a remand period of 2 years 8 months.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering that the sentences of seven years on each of the two distinct counts run consecutively.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal failed to comply with article 23(8) of the Constitution by not deducting the period the appellants spent on remand when re-sentencing them.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Key headnotes

Sentencing — Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences — Distinct Offences under Trial on Indictments Act s.2(2)
Where a person is convicted at one trial of two or more distinct offences, the general rule is that the sentences run consecutively; ordering them to run concurrently is a matter within the sentencing court's discretion depending on the circumstances of the case.
Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Sentence
An appellate court will interfere with a sentence imposed by a sentencing court only where that court acted on a wrong principle, overlooked a material factor, or the sentence is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate in view of the circumstances of the case.
Sentencing — Article 23(8) — Taking Remand Period into Account
Under the law as it stood before Rwabugande Moses v Uganda, taking into account the period spent on remand under article 23(8) of the Constitution did not require the sentencing court to apply an arithmetical formula or to specifically subtract that period from the final sentence; it sufficed that the court demonstrably considered the remand period. The period to be considered is strictly the time on remand, not time spent in prison after conviction.
Judicial Precedent — Temporal Application of an Overruling Decision
A judicial precedent can only be followed by courts determining cases after that precedent came into existence; a later decision cannot bind a court whose decision predates it, because a precedent must be in existence before it can be followed.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Penal Code Act s.285
  • Penal Code Act s.286(2)
  • Penal Code Act s.204(a)
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.2(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda article 23(8)

Cases cited (14)

  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Tukamuhabwa David and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2016)
  • Umar Sebidde v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2002)
  • Kaddu Kavulu Lawrence v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2018)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Jackson Zita v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1995)
  • Magala Ramathan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2014)
  • Kwamusi Jacob v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0203 of 2009)
  • Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2001)
  • Kabuye Senvawo 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)
  • Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
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.