Ojok & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.183 & 193 of 2013)

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

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court's sentence of 30 years imprisonment was illegal because it did not deduct the period the appellants had spent on remand, contrary to article 23(8) of the Constitution as interpreted in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda. The court set aside the sentence and, exercising its powers under section 11 of the Judicature Act, imposed a fresh sentence. Considering the appellants' youth and first-offender status against the gravity of the offences, it fixed an appropriate sentence of 20 years on each count, deducted 2 years and 11 months spent on remand, and imposed concurrent terms of 17 years and 1 month from the date of conviction.

Outcome

Appeal against sentence allowed; illegal sentences set aside and fresh concurrent sentences of 17 years and 1 month imposed on each appellant.

Facts

The appellants were indicted on two counts: murder contrary to sections 188 and 189(2) of the Penal Code Act, and aggravated robbery contrary to sections 285 and 286(2). During the night of 30/31 March 2004 at Layibi Comboni Missionary Residence in Gulu District, they murdered Father Luciano Fulvi and robbed him of Shs 2,000,000 and two phones, causing his death during the robbery. They were convicted on both counts and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. Both were first offenders; Appellant No.1 was 18 and Appellant No.2 was 19 at the time of the offence. They appealed against sentence only. On appeal, counsel raised that the trial court had not deducted the period spent on remand when passing sentence, contrary to article 23(8) of the Constitution.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court's failure to deduct the period spent on remand from the sentence rendered the sentence illegal under article 23(8) of the Constitution.
2. What the appropriate sentence should be upon re-sentencing the appellants.

Orders

• The original sentence imposed by the trial court set aside as illegal.
• Appellant No.1 sentenced to 17 years and 1 month imprisonment on count 1 and 17 years and 1 month on count 2, to run concurrently from 21 March 2007.
• Appellant No.2 sentenced to 17 years and 1 month imprisonment on count 1 and 17 years and 1 month on count 2, to run concurrently from 21 March 2007.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Penal Code Act s.188
• Penal Code Act s.189(2)
• Penal Code Act s.285
• Penal Code Act s.286(2)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.23(8)
• Judicature Act s.11

Cases cited (1)

• Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)

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