Wakilii

Muganga Richard and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 44 and 54 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2026] UGSC 25 · 2026 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court against sentence, from the Court of Appeal's decision in Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2012
Decision
Appeal dismissed on Ground 1 and allowed on Ground 2; the Court of Appeal sentences were set aside and each appellant re-sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment (27 years after deducting 3 years' remand), to run from 1 June 2012.

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 in a murder case, the Supreme Court dismissed Ground 1: although the trial judge improperly noted the appellants' lack of remorse, the issue was never raised before the Court of Appeal and no miscarriage of justice resulted given other legitimate aggravating factors. On Ground 2 the Court held that, while a court has discretion to impose varying sentences on co-accused convicted under common intention, it must give reasons for any disparity; the Court of Appeal's unexplained imposition of 30 years on the scene participants versus 20 years on the planners was a miscarriage of justice. The Court set aside and re-imposed 30 years (27 after remand), expressly adding degree of participation as an aggravating factor.

Facts

On 19 June 2009, Kasozi Gerald was killed in his home in Gomba District, dying of head injuries and fractured bones from cut wounds inflicted by attackers using torches. The deceased had bought and fenced off land with a water source from his father (A2), causing tension, and A2 blamed the deceased for killing two of A2's sons through witchcraft, vowing revenge. A2, A3 and A4 planned the killing and hired assailants. On 18 June 2009 the appellants were seen meeting in A2's plantation. During the night the deceased's home was broken into; the deceased's wife and children recognised three assailants — Muganga Richard (A1), Kalule Tadeo (A5) and Rujaga Donoziyo (A6) — by torchlight. Six accused were tried at the High Court; all were convicted of murder and sentenced to 60 years. A2 died before the appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions but reduced the sentences, imposing 30 years on the scene participants (A1, A5, A6) and 20 years on the planners (A3, A4).

Issues

  1. Whether the Justices of Appeal erred in law by failing to address that the trial judge sentenced the appellants on a wrong principle — treating their lack of remorse as an aggravating factor — thereby rendering the sentence illegal.
  2. Whether the Justices of Appeal erred in law by imposing differing sentences on co-accused convicted under the doctrine of common intention without justification, offending the principle of uniformity and consistency in sentencing.

Orders

  • The 1st appellant (Muganga Richard) is sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment for the murder of Kasozi Gerald, less 3 years spent in pre-trial detention.
  • The 2nd appellant (Kalule Tadeo) is sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment for the murder of Kasozi Gerald, less 3 years spent in pre-trial detention.
  • The 3rd appellant (Rujaga Donoziyo) is sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment for the murder of Kasozi Gerald, less 3 years spent in pre-trial detention.
  • Each appellant shall accordingly serve a period of 27 years' imprisonment from 1 June 2012, the date of conviction.
  • The orders of the Court of Appeal regarding the sentencing of the appellants are set aside and substituted with the orders of this Court.

Key headnotes

Sentencing — Lack of Remorse as an Aggravating Factor
A trial court's consideration of a convict's lack of remorse or penitence does not, per se, warrant quashing or reversing the sentence unless it occasions a failure or substantial miscarriage of justice, and the court is even more inclined to decline to vary the sentence where other legitimate aggravating factors were taken into account.
Appeals — Second Appellate Court — Grounds Not Raised Below
A second appellate court will not fault the first appellate court for failing to consider a matter that was never raised before it; an appellant must obtain leave under the Rules of Court to argue a new ground, the court being enjoined to entertain only matters that were before the first appellate court.
Sentencing — Uniformity and Consistency — Co-accused Convicted Under Common Intention
Although co-accused convicted under the doctrine of common intention are equally liable, the actual punishment is a matter of discretion and a court may impose varying sentences reflecting each offender's degree of participation; however, it must explain or give reasons for any disparity, and an unexplained variation in sentences among co-accused constitutes a miscarriage of justice.
Common Intention — Section 20 Penal Code Act
Where two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose together and an offence is committed that is a probable consequence of that purpose, each is deemed to have committed the offence and is a principal offender, regardless of whether they were physically present at the scene of the crime.
Appeals — Severity of Sentence — Section 5(3) Judicature Act
Under section 5(3) of the Judicature Act, an appeal to the Supreme Court against a sentence not fixed by law lies only on a matter of law and not on the severity of the sentence, and an appellate court will interfere with a sentencing discretion only where the lower court applied a wrong principle or failed to consider an important matter.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.188 (now Penal Code Act Cap 128 (2023) s.171)
  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.189 (now Penal Code Act Cap 128 (2023) s.172)
  • Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.20
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Judicature Act s.5(3)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 30(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 70(1)(a)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions 2013 para.7
  • Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions 2013 para.19

Cases cited (18)

  • Kakooza Livingstone v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1993)
  • Mattaka v Republic [1971] EA 495
  • Musozi Stephen vs Uganda, Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No.93/2077
  • Busiku Thomas v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2011)
  • Kamya Abdallah and 4 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2015)
  • Omusenu Sande v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2001)
  • Wodaba Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 2014)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
  • Muhoozi and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2014)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Ssenyonga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2020)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Attorney General v Susan Kigula and 417 Others (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2006)
  • Sekitoleko and 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2014)
  • Sebuwufu and 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2021)
  • Uganda vs Ambayo Charles and Abiliga Alfred HCCC Nos. 112/2015 & 78/2018 (Adjumani)
  • Charles Komiswa v Uganda [1979] HCB 86
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.