Berocan &Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 559 of 2014)

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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, hearing an appeal against sentence only following the appellants' conviction for murder, reaffirmed that it can interfere with a trial court's sentence only where it is illegal, based on a wrong principle, overlooks a material factor, or is manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice. Emphasising the need for consistency in sentencing for comparable murder cases and considering the appellants' status as first offenders and their ages, the Court reduced the sentences from 30 years and 20 years imprisonment to 20 years and 18 years imprisonment respectively, running from the date of conviction.

Outcome

Sentences reduced to 20 years and 18 years imprisonment for the first and second appellants respectively, running from the date of conviction

Facts

On the night of 10 June 2009, the deceased, Sekibule Henry, was hacked to death by three strange men at his home. The deceased ran out making an alarm but received no help, and was pursued and cut with a panga until he collapsed near the gate of a farm guarded by the first appellant. The second appellant was living with the deceased as husband and wife and was a friend of the first appellant, who worked as a watchman at a neighbouring farm. Both appellants were suspected, arraigned, and convicted of murder by the High Court at Nakawa, which found the killing was motivated by jealousy and rivalry between co-wives. The first appellant was sentenced to 30 years and the second appellant to 20 years imprisonment. Having been granted leave to appeal against sentence only, the appellants challenged the sentences as manifestly harsh and excessive given their status as first offenders, family responsibilities, and ages.

Issues

1. Whether the sentences of 30 years and 20 years imprisonment imposed on the appellants for murder were manifestly harsh and excessive in the circumstances.

Orders

• Appeal against sentence allowed.
• Sentence of the first appellant reduced from 30 years to 20 years imprisonment.
• Sentence of the second appellant reduced from 20 years to 18 years imprisonment.
• Sentences to run from 10 June 2014, the date of conviction.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Penal Code Act s.188
• Penal Code Act s.189
• Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23 s.132(1)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.30(1)

Cases cited (15)

• Sebuliba Siraj v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2009)
• Kiwalabye Benard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• James v Republic, (1950) 18 EACA 147
• Ogalo S/o Owoura V Republic, (1954) 24 EACA 270
• Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2001)
• Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
• Susan Kigula and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2004)
• Susan Kigula and 416 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2003)
• Attorney General v Susan Kigula and 417 Others (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2006)
• Mbunya Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
• Ayikanying Charles v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2012)
• Kyaterekera George v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2010)
• Akbar Hussein Godi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
• Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)

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