Wakilii

Turamye v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 93 of 2020)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 337 · 2023 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal against sentence only, from a High Court conviction and sentence entered on a plea bargain agreement
Decision
Appeal against sentence allowed; trial court sentences set aside and appellant re-sentenced to 23 years, 5 months and 11 days on each count, running concurrently, from 15 March 2019

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 a sentence imposed under a plea bargain agreement is not exempt from the constitutional requirement in Article 23(8) of the Constitution that a court take the remand period into account when sentencing. Following Rwabugande Moses v Uganda, taking the remand period into account is arithmetical and requires the court to deduct that period from the final sentence. The trial Judge's endorsement of the agreed 24-year sentence without deducting the seven months and 19 days spent on remand rendered the sentences illegal. The appeal against sentence succeeded, the sentences were set aside, and the appellant was re-sentenced to 23 years, 5 months and 11 days on each count, to run concurrently.

Outcome

Appeal against sentence allowed; trial court sentences set aside and appellant re-sentenced to 23 years, 5 months and 11 days on each count, running concurrently, from 15 March 2019

Facts

The appellant was indicted on two counts of murder of his sister's two children, who lived in the same homestead. Acting on a pre-existing grudge with his sister, the appellant bought super dip powder, mixed poison into an orange drink in a plastic bottle, and instructed his own son to deliver it to the deceased children, cautioning the son not to drink it. The children drank the poisoned drink and died shortly afterwards. The appellant surrendered to police, admitted killing the children, and the bottle and sachet were recovered and forensically examined; a post mortem confirmed death by poison ingestion. The appellant entered a Plea Bargain Agreement and was sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment on each count. He had spent approximately seven months and 19 days on remand, which the trial Judge did not deduct when endorsing the agreed sentence.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge erred in failing to deduct the period spent on remand from the sentence, thereby passing an illegal sentence.
  2. Whether the sentence should be set aside and the appellant re-sentenced with the remand period deducted.

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is allowed.
  • The sentences imposed by the High Court against the appellant for each of the counts are set aside.
  • The appellant shall serve an imprisonment term of 23 years, 5 months and 11 days from 15 March 2019, the date of conviction, in respect of each count of murder, both sentences to run concurrently.

Rules and key headnotes

Sentencing — Remand Period — Constitutional Duty to Deduct under Article 23(8)
When sentencing a convict to a term of imprisonment, a court must take into account the period spent in lawful custody before completion of trial, and that period must be arithmetically deducted from the final sentence; failure to do so renders the sentence illegal.
Sentencing — Plea Bargain Agreements — Application of Constitutional Sentencing Requirements
A sentence imposed pursuant to a plea bargain agreement is not exempt from the constitutional requirement under Article 23(8) to take the remand period into account; the court must deduct the remand period even where the term was agreed between the parties.
Appeals — Illegality of Sentence as a Ground for Setting Aside and Re-sentencing
Illegality of a sentence is a ground upon which an appellate court may set aside the sentence imposed by the trial court and, exercising the powers of the court of original jurisdiction under section 11 of the Judicature Act, sentence the appellant afresh.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Rwabugande Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014)
  • Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
  • Inensko Adanns v Uganda (HCCA No. 4 of 2017)
  • Luwaga Sulaiman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 858 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Turamye v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 93 of 2020) [2023] UGCA 337 (28 November 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.