Wakata v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 43 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 found that the trial Judge failed to take into account the period the appellant had spent on remand, rendering the 35-year sentence illegal under Article 23(8) of the Constitution. The Court set aside the sentence and, applying the principle of consistency in sentencing and weighing the aggravating factors (victim aged 6, appellant the victim's uncle) against the mitigating factors (first offender, aged 62), imposed a fresh sentence of 29 years, less the remand period of 8 months and 7 days, resulting in 28 years, 3 months and 23 days imprisonment running from the date of conviction.

Outcome

Appeal against sentence allowed; 35-year sentence set aside and substituted with 28 years, 3 months and 23 days imprisonment.

Facts

The appellant and the victim, a 6-year-old girl, both lived at Kigabwa Village in Kyankwanzi District. The appellant was an uncle to the victim. On 17 August 2012, the appellant asked the victim to follow him to a well to fetch water. On the way, he took her to a bush and had sexual intercourse with her, promising to buy her a chapatti and asking her not to tell her mother. The victim reported the incident to her elder brother, who reported it to their mother, who notified the police. The appellant was arrested. Medical examination indicated the victim had been defiled. The appellant denied the offence, alleging the prosecution witnesses lied and that the victim's mother was jealous and wanted his maize. The High Court believed the prosecution evidence, convicted the appellant of aggravated defilement, and sentenced him to 35 years imprisonment.

Issues

1. Whether the sentence of 35 years imprisonment imposed by the trial Court was harsh and manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
2. Whether the trial Court erred in failing to take into account the period the appellant spent on remand as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution.

Orders

• Sentence of 35 years imprisonment set aside.
• Appellant sentenced afresh to 29 years imprisonment, reduced by the remand period to 28 years, 3 months and 23 days imprisonment, running from the date of conviction on 17 April 2013.
• Appeal succeeds on the terms set out.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Penal Code Act Cap. 120 s.129(3) and (4)(a)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.23(8)
• Judicature Act Cap. 13 s.11
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.30(1)(a)
• Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 r.6(c)
• Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 r.15(2)

Cases cited (11)

• Owinji William v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2013)
• Mbunya Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
• Ninsiima Gilbert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2010)
• Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2001)
• Bukenya Joseph vs. Uganda, Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No.
• Sam Buteera v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1994)
• Kobusheshe v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2008)
• Uganda v Ssimbwa (Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1995)
• Mugasa Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2003)
• Othieno John vs. Uganda, Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No.
• Okello Geoffrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2014)

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