Wakilii

Okello & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2018] UGCA 59 · 2018 Sentence Reduced AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence from High Court conviction for murder
Decision
Appeal against sentence allowed; sentences set aside and substituted with 19 years' imprisonment running concurrently from the date of conviction

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 held that the trial judge erred by failing to take into account the period the appellants spent on remand as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution, and further erred in ordering the sentences to run from the resentencing date rather than the date of conviction. While the taking into account of remand need not be a mathematical exercise, the sentencing court must comply with the constitutional command. The Court set aside the sentences of 25 and 20 years and, after weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, substituted a uniform sentence of 19 years' imprisonment on each count, running concurrently from the date of conviction.

Outcome

Appeal against sentence allowed; sentences set aside and substituted with 19 years' imprisonment running concurrently from the date of conviction

Facts

The appellants were police officers who, in the course of their employment, intercepted a motor vehicle (UAB 787T) that the control officer of Jinja Police had communicated as carrying armed robbers. As a result of the shooting, the three occupants of the vehicle died. The appellants were indicted, tried and convicted of murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act, and sentenced to 25 and 20 years' imprisonment respectively. Dissatisfied, they appealed against sentence only, contending that the trial and resentencing judge failed to take into account the pre and post-conviction period spent in custody. The trial judge had ordered the sentences to run from the date of resentencing rather than from the date of conviction.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred by failing to take into account the period the appellants spent on remand when imposing sentence.
  2. Whether the appellate court should set aside and substitute the sentences.

Orders

  • Sentences of 25 and 20 years imprisonment set aside.
  • Each appellant sentenced to 19 years' imprisonment on each count from the date of conviction (2/09/2003).
  • Sentences to run concurrently.

Rules and key headnotes

Sentencing — Remand Period — Article 23(8) of the Constitution
A sentencing court must take into account the period a convict spent in lawful custody before completion of trial when imposing a term of imprisonment, but the constitutional command does not require this to be done in an arithmetical or mathematical way.
Sentencing — Commencement of Sentence — Date of Conviction
Sentences imposed on resentencing ought to run from the date of conviction where the convict has been in custody since conviction; ordering sentences to run from the resentencing date is an error.
Appeal — Appellate Interference with Sentence
An appellate court should not interfere with a trial court's sentencing discretion unless the trial court acted on a wrong principle, overlooked a material factor, or the sentence is illegal, manifestly excessive, or too low to amount to a miscarriage of justice.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Pandya v. R [1957] EA 336
  • Okeno v. Republic [1972] EA 32
  • Charles Bitwire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1985)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • Kyewalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okello & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 2015) [2018] UGCA 59 (30 July 2018)
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.