Wakilii

Okello alias Ongora and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 338 of 2017)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 145 · 2023 Sentence Reduced AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence only from High Court conviction on pleas of guilty
Decision
Appeal against sentence allowed; sentences reduced to 14 years, 5 months and 27 days for murder and 7 years, 5 months and 27 days for attempted murder, running concurrently

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.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal, hearing an appeal against sentence only, held that the trial judge failed to give adequate weight to the appellants' pleas of guilty, their youthful ages, and first-offender status. Finding the sentences of 35 years for murder and 25 years for attempted murder excessive and out of range compared to similar cases, the court set them aside. It substituted fresh sentences of 15 years for murder and 8 years for attempted murder, then deducted the 6 months and 3 days spent on remand, resulting in 14 years, 5 months and 27 days for murder and 7 years, 5 months and 27 days for attempted murder, to run concurrently.

Outcome

Appeal against sentence allowed; sentences reduced to 14 years, 5 months and 27 days for murder and 7 years, 5 months and 27 days for attempted murder, running concurrently

Facts

On 23 December 2016 at Ogili Cell, Alira Parish, Aduku Subcounty, Apac District, the appellants, paternal cousins of the victims with whom their families had long-standing land wrangles, murdered Maxwell Awal and attempted to murder Sophia Ogwal. The first appellant, a serving UPDF officer, travelled from Mbarara armed with an SMG rifle. Earlier the deceased's sister, Vivian Adong, was ambushed by the appellants but escaped and reported the matter to police. That evening the deceased went to untether animals and was shot by the first appellant who was hiding in a bush. Sophia Ogwal, the deceased's mother, ran to the scene where the first appellant struck her on the head with a gun butt and the second appellant cut her with a matchet, rendering her unconscious. The deceased had been shot in the head. Upon arrest and indictment the appellants pleaded guilty and were convicted. The first appellant was 27 and the second 20 years old; both were first offenders.

Issues

  1. Whether the sentences of 35 years for murder and 25 years for attempted murder imposed by the trial court were manifestly harsh and excessive.

Orders

  • Sentences of 35 years and 25 years imprisonment set aside.
  • Fresh sentence of 15 years imprisonment for murder imposed, reduced by remand period to 14 years, 5 months and 27 days.
  • Fresh sentence of 8 years imprisonment for attempted murder imposed, reduced by remand period to 7 years, 5 months and 27 days.
  • Sentences to run concurrently from the date of conviction, 28 July 2017.

Rules and key headnotes

Sentencing — Appellate Interference — Grounds for Interfering with Sentence
An appellate court will interfere with a sentence imposed by a trial court only where the trial court acted on a wrong principle, took into account factors it ought not to have, overlooked matters it ought to have considered, or passed a sentence that was illegal or manifestly excessive or so low as to cause an injustice.
Sentencing — Mitigation — Plea of Guilty as a Mitigating Factor
Where an accused pleads guilty, the court ought to exercise leniency because a trial has been avoided and victims and witnesses spared trauma; a first offender who pleads guilty should benefit from a discount of up to a third or even half of the potential sentence.
Sentencing — Uniformity and Parity — Consistency with Comparable Cases
In assessing whether a sentence is manifestly excessive, a court should be guided by sentences passed in previous cases based on similar facts in order to maintain parity and consistency in sentencing, while recognising that no two crimes are identical.
Sentencing — Failure to Consider Mitigating Factors — First Offender and Youthful Age
A trial court errs where it fails to give adequate weight to a first offender's plea of guilty, youthful age and antecedents; failure to do so may render an otherwise reasoned sentence harsh and excessive warranting appellate interference.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (16)

  • Fr Narcensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • National Environmental Management Authority v Solid State Limited (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2015)
  • Pandya Vs R [1957] EA 336
  • Sekandi Hassan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2019)
  • Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
  • Jackson Zita v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1995)
  • Mbunya Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
  • Aharikundira Yusitina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
  • Stephen Wamboya v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2017)
  • Atiku Lino v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2009)
  • Tuhumwire Mary v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2015)
  • Onyabo Bosco v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2014)
  • Ntambi Robert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2019)
  • Mwesigwa John and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 164 and 394 of 2014)
  • Mohammed Yasin Sekajolo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1999)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okello alias Ongora and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 338 of 2017) [2023] UGCA 145 (18 May 2023)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.