Ntare v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2011)

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

On an appeal against sentence for aggravated defilement, the Court of Appeal held that the trial Judge had complied with Article 23(8) of the Constitution because she expressly noted the remand period when sentencing, making the final sentence inclusive of it; taking remand into account is not a mere arithmetical exercise. The Court further held that the 25-year sentence did not exceed the permissible sentencing range discernible from comparable aggravated defilement cases and that aggravating and mitigating factors had been properly considered. Finding no reason to interfere, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence.

Outcome

Appeal against sentence dismissed; 25 years imprisonment upheld

Facts

The appellant, an askari who also ran a shop, and the 11-year-old victim lived in Seeta-Bweya Village, Mpigi District. On 26 March 2010, the victim was left at the appellant's shop by Ms. Luwasa, who did not return by nightfall. At about 8.30 p.m. the victim started home alone, but the appellant insisted on accompanying her, told her he loved her, and led her to his house, where he performed a sexual act on her by placing a finger in her vagina. Relatives searching for the delayed victim led PW2 Tamale Ahamada to the appellant's premises, where the appellant denied knowledge of her whereabouts. PW2 called out, eventually got a response, entered the appellant's house and rescued the victim, who reported the incident. The matter was reported to the LC and police, and the appellant was arrested. The appellant denied the offence, alleging a grudge with the victim's uncle, but the trial Judge believed the prosecution and convicted and sentenced him to 25 years imprisonment.

Issues

1. Whether the sentence of 25 years imprisonment was illegal because the trial Judge failed to take into account the period spent on remand under Article 23(8) of the Constitution.
2. Whether the sentence of 25 years imprisonment was manifestly harsh and excessive compared to sentences in similar aggravated defilement cases.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Sentence of 25 years imprisonment upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Penal Code Act, Cap. 120 s.129(3) and (4)(a)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 23(8)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 Rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (9)

• Abaasa Johnson v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2010)
• Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2001)
• Lukwago Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2010)
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Kizito Senkula vs. Uganda, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2001 (unreported)
• Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
• Mugasa Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2003)
• Othieno John v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2010)
• Okello Geoffrey vs. Uganda, (unreported), the Supreme Court

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.

• Eryeny Bonny v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2022)

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