Lubandi Aloysius v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 122 of 2021)

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

On appeal against sentence only in a murder conviction, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's failure to make an explicit arithmetical deduction of the remand period, despite acknowledging it, rendered the thirty-year sentence illegal under Article 23(8) of the Constitution and the binding precedent in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda. However, given the brutality, premeditation and betrayal of trust involved, the sentence was not manifestly excessive in substance. The appeal succeeded only to the extent of correcting the illegality. The Court set aside the thirty-year term and substituted twenty-seven years, seven months and eight days, reflecting the verified remand period of two years, four months and twenty-two days, effective from the date of conviction.

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed; thirty-year sentence set aside and varied to twenty-seven years, seven months and eight days' imprisonment to account for the remand period

Facts

The appellant and the deceased, Nabaggala Sharon, were in a romantic relationship marked by frequent quarrels and physical abuse, including assaults and attempted strangulation by the appellant. On 13th August 2018 the deceased remained at home while her mother went to work. Attempts to reach her by phone failed. That evening her mother returned to find her lying dead on her bed, her neck cut open and her body swollen. A post-mortem revealed a stab wound to the lower face, a deep cut to the right forearm, abrasions and contusions to the neck, and a fractured thyroid bone; the pathologist found the cause of death to be manual strangulation. The appellant was arrested hiding in a trench culvert and, according to the prosecution, admitted killing the deceased because she had ended their relationship. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. The trial judge acknowledged the remand period but did not arithmetically deduct it.

Issues

1. Whether the sentence was illegal for the trial judge's failure to deduct the period spent on remand.
2. Whether the thirty-year custodial sentence was harsh and manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case.

Orders

• Appeal succeeds in part, only to the extent of correcting the sentence.
• The sentence of thirty (30) years' imprisonment imposed by the High Court is set aside.
• A term of twenty-seven (27) years, seven (7) months and eight (8) days' imprisonment is substituted, effective from the date of conviction, being 22nd January 2021.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Penal Code Act s.188
• Penal Code Act s.189
• Penal Code Act (Cap. 128) s.171
• Penal Code Act (Cap. 128) s.172
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.23(8)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.132(4)
• Judicature Act s.11
• Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)
• Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013, para.5(a)
• Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013, Objective 3(e)

Cases cited (20)

• Oryem Richard v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2014)
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
• Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
• R v Haviland [1983] 5 Cr. App. R (S) 109
• Nashimolo Paul Kibolo v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2017)
• Aharikundira Yusitina v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
• Atukwasa Jonan & 6 Others v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2018)
• Atiku Lino v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2009)
• Sam Oyita v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 2010)
• Kahonaho Nasasira David v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2014)
• Sekawoya Blasio v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2014)
• Sebuliba Siraj v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 2005)
• Florence Abbo v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2013)
• Magero Patrick & Another v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 076 of 2019)
• Opolot Justine & Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2014)
• Nashimolo Paul Kibolo v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2017)
• Kaddu Karule Lawrence v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2018)
• Ssemaganda Sperito v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2016)
• Ninsiima Gilbert v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2010)

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