Naturinda v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 091 of 2013)

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 Court of Appeal held that, following the binding Supreme Court decision in Magezi Gad v Uganda, Article 23(8) of the Constitution does not apply to a sentence of life imprisonment, which is not a quantified term, so the original sentence was not illegal. However, considering comparable sentencing precedents, the mitigating factors, and the appellant's guilty plea, the court found the life sentence harsh and manifestly excessive. It substituted a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment, deducted the 1 year and 4 months spent on remand, and imposed a term of 13 years and 8 months from the date of conviction. The appeal against sentence was allowed.

Outcome

Sentence of life imprisonment set aside and substituted with 13 years and 8 months' imprisonment running from the date of conviction

Facts

On 10 November 2009, the appellant, a man aged about 20 to 21 years, performed a sexual act with a girl aged 4 years while she had gone to a well to fetch water. He was charged with aggravated defilement contrary to section 129(3) and (4)(a) of the Penal Code Act. The appellant pleaded guilty, saving the court's time and showing remorse. He had been on remand for 1 year and 4 months. On 5 April 2011, the High Court at Kabale convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment, noting the extreme tender age of the victim and the need to protect society. With leave of the court, the appellant appealed against sentence only, contending it was harsh and excessive given his guilty plea, first-offender status and remand period.

Issues

1. Whether the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant for aggravated defilement was harsh and manifestly excessive.
2. Whether Article 23(8) of the Constitution requiring the deduction of remand time applies to a sentence of life imprisonment.

Orders

• The appeal against sentence is allowed.
• The sentence of life imprisonment is set aside.
• A sentence of 15 years' imprisonment is substituted, less 1 year and 4 months spent on remand, resulting in 13 years and 8 months' imprisonment to be served from 5 April 2011.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.129(3) & (4)(a)
• Trial on Indictments Act s.132(1)(b)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 23(8)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 132(4)
• Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 Objective 3(e)
• Court of Appeal Rules r.30(1)

Cases cited (18)

• Tigo Steven v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2009)
• Kiwalabye Benard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
• Ssemanda Christopher and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 077 of 2010)
• Fr. Narcensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaaga (Civil Appeal No. 017 of 2002)
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 010 of 1997)
• Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2001)
• Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 025 of 2014)
• Ogwal Alberto v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2014)
• Ogwal Nelson and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 606 of 2015)
• Kia Erin v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2013)
• Oryem Francis and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2011)
• Byamukama Naboth v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2009)
• Magezi Gad v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
• Bashir Ssali v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2003)
• Sebide v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2002)
• Sam Buteera v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1994)
• Rugaranwa Fred v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 039 of 1995)
• German Benjamin v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2010)

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.

• Katarinyeba v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 432 of 2016)

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