Tatyama v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 35 of 2018)

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 a second appeal under section 5(3) of the Judicature Act, an accused may appeal against sentence only on a matter of law, not on the severity of the sentence. The appellant's sole ground was that the Court of Appeal's sentence of 17 years and 4 months for aggravated defilement was manifestly harsh and excessive in disregard of mitigating factors. The Supreme Court held that this challenge went to severity, on which the appellant had no right of appeal, and that the court therefore had no jurisdiction to determine it. The appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal sentence of 17 years and 4 months' imprisonment stands

Facts

The appellant was tried and convicted of aggravated defilement contrary to sections 129(3) and 4(a) of the Penal Code Act and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. On 9 July 2009 the victim's mother left the victim, a 12-year-old girl, and the victim's younger brother at home while she attended a nearby funeral. During the night the appellant carried the victim from her bed, placed her on the floor and had sexual intercourse with her, then warned her not to tell anyone. The victim identified the appellant by moonlight, by his usual overcoat and by his voice, and reported the matter to her mother the next morning. The appellant was arrested and convicted. He appealed to the Court of Appeal against sentence on the ground that the trial judge failed to account for time spent on remand; the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to 17 years and 4 months after deducting the remand period. He then appealed to the Supreme Court contending the sentence remained manifestly harsh and excessive.

Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court, on a second appeal, has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal that the sentence imposed was manifestly harsh and excessive.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Judicature Act s.5(3)
• Penal Code Act s.129(3)
• Penal Code Act s.129(4)(a)

Cases cited (5)

• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Okello Geoffrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2014)
• Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2016)
• Magala Ramathan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2014)
• Mawazi Mallinga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2018)

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.

• Kamoti v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2018)

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