Wakilii

Lomokol Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No 67 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 412 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence from a High Court conviction for murder, attempted murder and attempted suicide
Decision
Appeal dismissed; sentences of 30 years for murder, 20 years for attempted murder and 1 year for attempted suicide affirmed.

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.

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

The appellant challenged his consecutive sentences for murder, attempted murder and attempted suicide on the ground that the trial judge failed to arithmetically deduct time spent on remand. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the rule requiring arithmetical deduction of the remand period, established in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (delivered 3 March 2017), does not apply retrospectively. As the appellant was sentenced on 10 February 2017, before that decision, the trial judge was entitled merely to take the remand period into consideration under Article 23(8) of the Constitution, which she did. The sentences were lawful and were accordingly affirmed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; sentences of 30 years for murder, 20 years for attempted murder and 1 year for attempted suicide affirmed.

Facts

The appellant shared a room with the deceased (Annah Lokamal, his daughter), his wife Lotyang Lucy and his in-law Kiyonga Michael at Masese village, Jinja district. On the night of 13 October 2013 the appellant quarrelled with his wife and chased her out of the house. In the morning of 14 October 2013, when his wife returned and knocked, the appellant refused to open the door, struck the deceased on the back of the head with a chair and stabbed her in the chest with a knife, killing her. He then cut Kiyonga Michael several times in the throat, causing severe injuries. When neighbours and the local Chairman broke into the house, they found the appellant attempting to hang himself, the deceased dead in a pool of blood and Kiyonga severely injured. The appellant was convicted of murder, attempted murder and attempted suicide and sentenced on 10 February 2017 to 30 years, 20 years and 1 year respectively.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in law and fact in sentencing the appellant without arithmetically deducting the period he had spent on remand.
  2. Whether the arithmetical-deduction rule established in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda applies to sentences passed before that decision was delivered.
  3. Whether the sentences were illegal for failure to comply with Article 23(8) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The sentences imposed by the trial Judge against the appellant were done in accordance with law and are hereby affirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Remand Period — Retrospective Application of Rwabugande
The requirement to arithmetically deduct the period spent on remand from a sentence, established in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda, does not apply retrospectively to sentences passed before that decision was delivered on 3 March 2017.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Sentencing Discretion
An appellate court will interfere with the sentencing discretion of a trial judge only where the sentence is illegal, where it is so manifestly excessive as to amount to an injustice, or where the trial court ignored an important matter that ought to have been considered.
Constitutional Law — Article 23(8) — Consideration of Pre-trial Detention in Sentencing
A trial judge sentencing before 3 March 2017 complied with Article 23(8) of the Constitution by taking the period spent on remand into consideration, without being obliged to arithmetically subtract that period from the sentence.
Statutory Interpretation — Doctrine of Precedent — Retrospectivity
A judicial decision cannot operate as binding precedent in a matter that was concluded before that decision was delivered; courts follow the position of the law from the date of the decision onwards.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Henry Kifamunte v Uganda [1998] UGSC 20
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • Byamukama Herbert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2017)
  • Noshimolo Poul Kibolo v Ugonda SCCrA No. 46 of 2O
  • Ssebunyo and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lomokol Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No 67 of 2018) [2025] UGCA 412 (17 December 2025)
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.