Wakilii

Marahi Raymond & 3 Others V Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2014)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 158 · 2019 Sentence Reduced AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence only from High Court conviction for murder
Decision
Sentences set aside; appellants re-sentenced with reduced terms and the second appellant ordered released as a minor at the time of the offence.

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 Court of Appeal held that a sentence arrived at without properly accounting for the period an accused spent on remand contravenes Article 23(8) of the Constitution and is illegal. Because the trial Judge was uncertain of the remand periods, the sentences were set aside. Exercising its powers under section 11 of the Judicature Act, the Court re-sentenced the appellants: 12 years for the first appellant. Finding the second appellant was a minor at the time of the offence, the Court ordered his immediate release. The third and fourth appellants were sentenced to 20 and 21 years respectively.

Outcome

Sentences set aside; appellants re-sentenced with reduced terms and the second appellant ordered released as a minor at the time of the offence.

Facts

On 21 April 2012 the deceased, Marahi Zephania, was digging a pit latrine when he made an alarm. His wife (PW2) found all four appellants together with their father armed with pangas, spears and knives, cutting the deceased. She raised an alarm answered by PW3, and the appellants fled, but the deceased was already dead. The police were called and took the body for post-mortem. The appellants were arrested and charged with murder. The first appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 35 years imprisonment; the second, third and fourth appellants denied the offence, were tried, convicted and each sentenced to 45 years imprisonment. In sentencing, the trial Judge stated he would deduct remand periods but was uncertain of the exact periods, and referred to the appellants as "allegedly" first offenders despite no contrary information. The second appellant was later shown to have been below 18 years at the time of the offence.

Issues

  1. Whether the sentences imposed were illegal for failure to comply with Article 23(8) of the Constitution regarding deduction of the period spent on remand.
  2. Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants were harsh and excessive.
  3. Whether the second appellant, being a minor at the time of the offence, was lawfully sentenced.

Orders

  • Sentences of 35 and 45 years imprisonment set aside as illegal for non-compliance with Article 23(8) of the Constitution.
  • First appellant re-sentenced to 12 years imprisonment (14 years less 2 years on remand) from 25/04/2014.
  • Second appellant's sentence set aside and immediate release ordered unless held on other charges, being a minor at the time of the offence.
  • Third appellant re-sentenced to 20 years imprisonment (22 years less 2 years on remand) from 25/04/2014.
  • Fourth appellant re-sentenced to 21 years imprisonment (22 years less 1 year on remand) from 25/04/2014.

Rules and key headnotes

Sentencing — Article 23(8) Constitution — Deduction of Period on Remand
A sentence arrived at without taking into consideration the period spent on remand is illegal for failure to comply with the mandatory constitutional provision in Article 23(8); a trial court's mere statement that it "deducts" remand, without ascertaining and applying the actual period, does not satisfy the requirement.
Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence unless there was a failure to exercise discretion, a failure to take into account a material consideration, an error in principle, or the sentence is illegal or manifestly excessive so as to amount to an injustice.
Juvenile Offenders — Sentencing of Minors under the Children Act
Where an accused was a minor at the time of committing an offence, he ought to be remitted to the Family and Children Court under section 104(2) of the Children Act, and the maximum penalty for an offence punishable by death is 3 years under section 94(1)(g); a sentence disregarding minority is illegal.
Sentencing — Re-sentencing Power under Section 11 Judicature Act
Where a sentence is set aside as illegal, the Court of Appeal may invoke section 11 of the Judicature Act to exercise the jurisdiction of the trial court and impose an appropriate sentence, considering both mitigating and aggravating factors and the range of sentences for similar offences.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (13)

  • Rwabuganda Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Mwesige Peter v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 527 of 2014)
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Kamya Johnson Wavamuno v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2000)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • R vs Haviland (1983) 5 CR. App.R 109
  • Ogalo s/o Owoura vs R (1954) 21 EACA 126
  • R vs Mohamedali Jamal (1948) 15 EACA 126
  • Emeju Juventine v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 095 of 2014)
  • Anguyo Robert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 048 of 2009)
  • Mboinegaba James v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2014)
  • Tumwesigye Anthony v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 046 of 2012)
  • Oneti Dante v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0007 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Marahi Raymond & 3 Others V Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2014) [2019] UGCA 158 (20 June 2019)
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.