Wakilii

Opolot Ben v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 70 of 2023)

Supreme Court · [2026] UGSC 13 · 2026 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal against sentence from the Court of Appeal in a murder conviction
Decision
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal sentence set aside and appellant resentenced to 30 years, 11 months and 4 days from 13/04/2017

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 confined to legal issues, the Supreme Court held that although the Court of Appeal correctly complied with Article 23(8) of the Constitution by deducting remand time, it relied on an erroneous conviction date of 13.04.2018 instead of the true date of 13.04.2017 and miscalculated the remand period as two years rather than one year and 21 days, rendering the sentence illegal. The appropriate 32-year sentence was undisturbed, but the deduction was corrected. The appeal was allowed, the Court of Appeal sentence set aside, and the appellant resentenced to 30 years, 11 months and 4 days running from 13.04.2017.

Facts

On 21 March 2016 the appellant, together with another person, conspired to and strangled his girlfriend, Aleper Christine, with whom he had a child, killing her. He was arrested and convicted on his own plea of guilty to murder, and sentenced by the High Court to 49 years' imprisonment on 13 April 2017. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the sentence illegal because the trial judge had not considered the period spent on remand. It set the sentence aside, imposed a fresh term of 32 years, and deducted two years for remand, arriving at 30 years to run from a conviction date it recorded as 13 April 2018. Both parties accepted there had been a mix-up over the conviction date and the consequent remand deduction. The record showed the appellant was in fact convicted on 13 April 2017 and had spent approximately one year and 21 days in custody and on remand from his arrest on 23 March 2016.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in calculating the period the appellant spent on remand by relying on an incorrect date of conviction, thereby rendering the substituted sentence illegal.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The sentence of 30 years' imprisonment from 13/04/2018 imposed on the appellant by the Court of Appeal is set aside.
  • The appellant shall serve a term of imprisonment of 30 years, 11 months and 4 days from the date of conviction, that is 13/04/2017.

Key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Scope of a Second Appeal Against Sentence
On a second appeal against sentence the Supreme Court is constrained by section 5(3) of the Judicature Act to consider only legal issues, not the severity of the sentence.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Sentence
An appellate court will interfere with a sentence only where the sentencing court acted on wrong principles, overlooked material factors, or where the sentence is on the whole illegal.
Constitutional Law — Article 23(8) — Deduction of Remand Period in Sentencing
Article 23(8) of the Constitution requires the period spent on remand to be arithmetically deducted from the sentence, and a deduction computed from an incorrect conviction date that miscalculates the remand period renders the resulting sentence illegal and liable to correction.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Penal Code Act s.188
  • Penal Code Act s.189
  • Constitution Article 23(8)
  • Judicature Act s.5(3)
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions, 2023 Rule 15(2)

Cases cited (5)

  • [2025] UGSC 40
  • [2017] UGSC 8
  • [2024] UGSC 46
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda. No.25 of 2014(SC)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
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.