Mulolo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2017)

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 was convicted of murder on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment after deducting three years spent on remand. He appealed solely against sentence as manifestly harsh and excessive. The Court of Appeal, reappraising the record, held that an appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's sentencing discretion unless the sentence is manifestly excessive, illegal, or wrong in principle. Noting the sentencing range for murder of 35 years under the guidelines and the mitigating factors considered by the trial judge, the Court found the sentence was not harsh and fell within the prescribed legal ambit. The appeal was dismissed and the sentence upheld.

Outcome

Appeal against sentence dismissed; sentence of 15 years' imprisonment upheld

Facts

The deceased and the appellant were in a relationship and lived together. They were last seen together on the night of 29 November 2012. On the morning of 30 November 2012, the deceased's door was found open and she was found dead with injuries on her head. The post-mortem revealed the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock following severe bleeding from a neck stab wound inflicted by a sharp piercing object. The appellant was arrested from hiding and identified as the assailant at an identification parade. He was examined and found to be of sound mind. The deceased's properties were recovered from the appellant. He was charged with murder (count 1) and aggravated robbery (count 2), initially pleaded not guilty, but later changed his plea on the murder count. The State tendered no evidence on the aggravated robbery count, which was withdrawn. He was convicted on count 1 and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment after discounting three years spent on remand from an 18-year sentence.

Issues

1. Whether the sentence of 15 years' imprisonment imposed on the appellant for murder was manifestly harsh and excessive in the circumstances.

Orders

• The sentence of the lower court is upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.188
• Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.189
• Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.286(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directives S.I 13-10 Rule 30(1)(a)
• Constitutional (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions, Legal Notice No.8 of 2013 paragraph 5
• Constitutional (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions, Legal Notice No.8 of 2013 paragraph 6(c)
• Constitutional (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions, Legal Notice No.8 of 2013 paragraph 19
• Constitutional (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions, Legal Notice No.8 of 2013 paragraph 20

Cases cited (7)

• Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
• Muhwezi Bayon v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2013)
• Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
• Ssemanda Christopher and Muyingo Denis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2010)
• Abaasa Johnson & another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2010)
• Selle & another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd. & others, 1968 E.A 123
• Peters v Sunday Post Limited 1958 E.A 424

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Khaukha & 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeals 58 & 59 of 2012)
• Asama & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 86 of 2010)

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