Mukasa & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 4 of 2023)

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 a second appeal against sentence for causing grievous bodily harm, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court's reduced 3-year sentence was illegal because the time the appellants had spent on remand was not deducted, as the respondent conceded. The Court set aside the illegal sentence and imposed a fresh 3-year term, holding that the sentence runs from the date of conviction and sentence by the trial magistrate (10 January 2018) and not from the date the appeal was decided. Computing the remand period against that term showed the appellants had fully served their sentences and should have been released by 2021; their continued detention was unnecessary. The appeal was allowed and immediate release ordered.

Outcome

Illegal sentence set aside; fresh 3-year sentence imposed running from the date of conviction (10 January 2018); appellants found to have fully served their sentences and ordered released immediately.

Facts

The appellants assaulted Charles Nkuruziza at a trading centre, leaving him unconscious. They were charged before the Chief Magistrate's Court with causing grievous harm contrary to section 219 of the Penal Code Act, convicted, and sentenced to six and seven years' imprisonment. On first appeal the High Court (Nakachwa Florence J) partially allowed the appeal and reduced each appellant's sentence to 3 years, ordering that it run from 31 October 2022, the date the appellate judgment was delivered. The appellants, still aggrieved, brought this second appeal contending that the time spent on remand had not been deducted and that the sentence should run from the date of their original conviction. The first appellant had served 23 days on remand and the second appellant 882 days. The appellants were first offenders and elderly men (around 55 and 56 years at sentencing); the first appellant was a Local Council 1 chairperson.

Issues

1. Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants were manifestly harsh and excessive.
2. Whether the sentence was illegal for failure to deduct the time the appellants spent on remand.
3. Whether the 3-year sentence ran from the date of conviction in the magistrate's court or from the date of the High Court appellate judgment.

Orders

• Appeal against sentence allowed.
• Illegal sentence set aside and a fresh sentence imposed.
• Fresh sentence of 3 years' imprisonment to run from the date of conviction and sentence in the trial magistrate's court (10 January 2018).
• Appellants ordered released immediately.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.219

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