Maberi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 65 of 2010)

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 appellant, convicted of aggravated defilement and sentenced to 25 years, appealed solely on the ground that the trial judge failed to deduct his remand period, rendering the sentence illegal under Article 23(8). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the rule in Rwabugande v Uganda — requiring arithmetical deduction of the remand period — was set down on 3 March 2017 and does not apply retrospectively to sentences passed earlier. As the appellant was sentenced in 2010 and the trial judge had considered the 20-month remand period as the then-prevailing law required, the sentence was legal. The court further found 25 years within the sentencing range for aggravated defilement of a young child by her father.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the appellant to continue serving the 25 years' imprisonment imposed by the trial court.

Facts

On 19 August 2008 at Bubeza Parish, Buwalasi Sub-County, Sironko District, the appellant, the biological father of a seven-year-old girl, took her to his bedroom, made her lie on her back and sexually assaulted her, causing pain and blocking her mouth when she cried. Her mother returned from the banana plantation and found the appellant lying on top of the child; an alarm was raised and the child was taken to the Local Council chairperson, a health centre, and then Mbale Police Station. The appellant fled the scene but returned days later and was arrested. He denied the offence but admitted the victim was his biological daughter. After a full trial, Musota J convicted him of aggravated defilement and on 27 April 2010 sentenced him to 25 years' imprisonment, noting that he had spent 20 months on remand. The appellant appealed only against sentence, contending that the remand period had not been deducted from the term imposed.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred in imposing a sentence of 25 years' imprisonment without deducting the period the appellant had spent on remand, rendering the sentence illegal under Article 23(8) of the Constitution.
2. Whether the rule in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda — requiring the arithmetical deduction of the remand period — applies retrospectively to a sentence imposed before 3 March 2017.
3. Whether the sentence of 25 years' imprisonment was harsh and manifestly excessive in the circumstances.

Orders

• The appeal is dismissed.
• The appellant shall continue to serve his sentence of 25 years' imprisonment, commencing on the date he was first sentenced.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Penal Code Act s.129(3), (4)(a) and (c)
• Constitution Article 23(8)
• Constitution Article 132(4)
• Constitution Article 121
• Trial on Indictments Act s.131(1)
• Court of Appeal Rules rule 5
• Judicature Act s.7
• Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for the Courts of Judicature) (Practice Directions) 2013, Guideline 15

Cases cited (19)

• Walimbwa Geoffrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2016)
• Rwabugande Moses v Uganda [2017] UGSC 8
• Buli Moses & 7 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 2014)
• Nashimolo Paul Kibolo v Uganda [2020] UGSC 24
• Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
• Bashir Ssali v Uganda [2005] UGSC 21
• Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda [1994] UGSC 11
• Attorney General v Susan Kigula and 417 others [2009] UGSC 6
• Duke Mabeya Gwaka v Attorney General [2023] UGCC 104
• Abelle Asumani v Uganda [2018] UGSC 10
• Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2007)
• Kabuge Senyewo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2002)
• Katende Ahamad v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2004)
• Bukenga Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2010)
• Sebunya Robert & Another v Uganda [2018] UGSC 13
• Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda [2018] UGSC 48
• Opio Moses v Uganda; Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2010
• Ssenonga Frank v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2010)
• Oumo Ben alias Ofwono v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2016)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Kidega Sabino Alias Agongo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 77 of 2014)

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