Batuli Moses & 7 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 2014)

Observed later treatment

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence. It held that the trial Judge rendered the sentences illegal by deducting only one year for remand when the appellants had spent three years and three months in pre-trial detention, contrary to the mandatory requirement under Article 23(8) of the Constitution and Guideline 15 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Invoking section 11 of the Judicature Act, the Court set a fresh sentence of 17 years' imprisonment on each count, from which it deducted the full remand period, resulting in 13 years and 9 months' imprisonment for each appellant, running from the date of conviction.

Outcome

Appeal against sentence allowed; sentences set aside and each appellant resentenced to 13 years and 9 months' imprisonment from the date of conviction.

Facts

A child was sent to a shop in Iganga district and did not return, prompting a report of disappearance at Nambale police post. Villagers complained that the police were doing nothing. On 9 February 2011, three persons known as witch doctors — Baleta Steven, Yolyanaye Itazi and Mudungu Moses — were arrested in connection with the disappearance. A crowd gathered and marched to the police post armed with hoes, hammers, sticks and stones, demanding the suspects. The group was initially dispersed but returned, throwing stones and overpowering the police officers, who fled. The mob, joined by the appellants, broke into the police cells and assaulted the three suspects, leading to their deaths. The missing child was later found at Mayuge police station. The appellants were charged with three counts of murder, convicted, and each sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment per count to run concurrently. They appealed against sentence only.

Issues

1. Whether the sentence of 15 years' imprisonment imposed on each appellant was illegal, harsh and/or excessive.
2. Whether the trial Judge complied with the mandatory requirement to deduct the period spent on remand in determining the sentence.

Orders

• The appeal against sentence is allowed.
• The sentence of 15 years' imprisonment on each count is set aside as illegal.
• Each appellant is sentenced to 13 years and 9 months' imprisonment to be served from 30 April 2014, the date of conviction.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Penal Code Act s.188
• Penal Code Act s.189
• Constitution of Uganda Article 23(8)
• Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Guideline 15
• Judicature Act s.11
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 30
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 66(5)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 73(6)

Cases cited (14)

• John Kasimbazi and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 2013)
• Magala Ramathan v Uganda [2017] UGSC 34
• Mbunya Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
• Rwabugande Moses v Uganda [2017] UGSC 8
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda [1998] UGSC 15
• Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
• Abelle Asuman v Uganda [2018] UGSC 10
• Sunday Gordon v Uganda [2015] UGCA 67
• Simbwa Paul v Uganda [2014] UGCA 57
• Bashir Ssali v Uganda [2005] UGSC 21
• Ninsiima Gilbert v Uganda [2014] UGCA 65
• Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda [1994] UGSC 17
• Kamya and 4 Others v Uganda [2018] UGSC 12
• Anguyo Robert v Uganda [2016] UGCA 39

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Onyolo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 214 of 2019)
• Anguipi Isaac alias Zako v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2016)
• Kairu & Anor v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 34 of 2014)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.