Wakilii

Odong and 2 Others v Uganda [2023] UGSC 52

Supreme Court · 2023 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court against sentence and a compensation order, from the Court of Appeal at Gulu
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal's sentence of 28 years and 10 months imprisonment and the order for UGX 20,000,000 compensation 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 limited to sentence and a compensation order, the Supreme Court held that it will not interfere with concurrent findings absent a failure to evaluate evidence or manifest error, and that under s.5(3) of the Judicature Act an appeal against sentence lies only on a matter of law, not severity. The Court found the Court of Appeal had weighed both mitigating and aggravating factors, including age, and had lawfully exercised its discretion under s.2(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act to order consecutive sentences. Sentencing guidelines remain guidelines and cannot fetter discretion. Both grounds failed and the appeal was dismissed, upholding the 28 years and 10 months sentence and the UGX 20 million compensation.

Facts

The three appellants were indicted on a count of murder and a count of aggravated robbery. The victim, a young man of about 30, was killed, his body tied to a tree, and his motor vehicle taken. The trial court convicted them and sentenced each to 30 years for murder and 15 years for aggravated robbery, to run consecutively, and ordered them jointly and severally to pay UGX 20,000,000 compensation to the vehicle owner, Mr. Julius Ceaser. On appeal, the Court of Appeal re-sentenced each appellant to 16 years and 11 months on the murder count and 11 years and 11 months on the robbery count (after deducting remand time), to run consecutively, totalling 28 years and 10 months, and maintained the compensation order. The appellants, aged 38, 43 and 25 at the time of the offences, pleaded guilty, were first offenders and remorseful. They appealed to the Supreme Court against sentence and the compensation order.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in sentencing the appellants to 28 years and 10 months imprisonment without adequately considering mitigating factors.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by ordering the sentences to run consecutively and imposing a compensation order, without giving reasons for the exercise of its discretion.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The decision of the Court of Appeal is upheld.

Key headnotes

Criminal Appeals — Second Appeal — Scope of Interference with Concurrent Findings
A second appellate court will not re-evaluate the evidence or question concurrent findings of fact by the High Court and Court of Appeal, unless it is shown that those courts failed to evaluate the evidence or are proved manifestly wrong on findings of fact.
Sentencing — Appeal Against Sentence — Jurisdiction Limited to Matters of Law
Under s.5(3) of the Judicature Act, where an appeal is against a sentence or order not fixed by law, the accused may appeal to the Supreme Court only on a matter of law, and not on the severity of the sentence.
Sentencing — Consecutive Sentences — Judicial Discretion under s.2(2) Trial on Indictments Act
Under s.2(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act, a court convicting a person of two or more distinct offences at one trial has discretion to order the resulting terms of imprisonment to run consecutively or concurrently; the sentencing guidelines remain guidelines and cannot be used to fetter that discretion.
Sentencing — Remand Period Deduction — Non-Retrospective Effect of Rwabugande
The arithmetical deduction of time spent on remand required by Rwabugande Moses v Uganda has no retrospective effect; a sentence passed before that decision, in accordance with the law and precedent then in force, cannot be faulted for not applying the mathematical formula.
Sentencing — Mitigating and Aggravating Factors — Interference on Appeal
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence where the sentencing court considered both the mitigating factors, including the convicts' age, and the aggravating factors, as sentencing is entirely within the discretion of the court.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Penal Code Act s.285
  • Penal Code Act s.286(2)
  • Trial on Indictments Act (Cap 23) s.2(2)
  • Judicature Act s.5(3)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.31
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice Directions) 2013, Guideline 8

Cases cited (13)

  • Magala Ramathan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2014)
  • Mawazi Malinga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2018)
  • [2012] SZSC 39
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Sekandi Hassan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2019)
  • Areet v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2005)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Bwerenga Adonia v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2016)
  • Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2016)
  • Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2007)
  • Kabuye Senoeyo 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)
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.