Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Itembe Palasi v Uganda (Criminal Confirmation No. 1/93) [1993] UGHCCRD 2 (5 July 1993)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court confirmed the consecutive sentences of 12 months for shop breaking and 24 months for theft, totaling 36 months imprisonment, on the basis that the trial magistrate's reasoning was sound and the sentence was reasonable in light of the accused's admission of guilt and prior similar convictions. The confirmation was made after careful consideration of the circumstances and the need for deterrence and proportionality in sentencing repeat offenders.

Court disposition

sentence_confirmed

Orders

  • The consecutive sentence of 36 months imprisonment imposed upon Peter Itembe Palasi is confirmed.

02

Material facts

Parties

Peter Itembe Palasi

Defendant

Uganda

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Total Imprisonment Term Months: 36
  • Imprisonment Term Count 1 Months: 12
  • Imprisonment Term Count 2 Months: 24

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Confirmation / Sentence Confirmation

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Penal Code Act, sections 283(a) and 252

    Sentencing for shop breaking and theft must reflect the gravity of the offences and the accused's criminal history.

  2. 02

    Ugandan sentencing practice

    Judicial confirmation of sentences requires consideration of the trial magistrate's reasoning and the circumstances of the case.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court confirmed the consecutive sentences of 12 months for shop breaking and 24 months for theft, totaling 36 months imprisonment, on the basis that the trial magistrate's reasoning was sound and the sentence was reasonable in light of the accused's admission of guilt and prior similar convictions. The confirmation was made after careful consideration of the circumstances and the need for deterrence and proportionality in sentencing repeat offenders.

Court disposition

sentence_confirmed

  • The consecutive sentence of 36 months imprisonment imposed upon Peter Itembe Palasi is confirmed.

Source and reliance status

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[1993] UGHCCRD 2

Mon Justice Jsekeho

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT JINJA

CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION NO. $1/93$

PETER ITEMBE PALASI :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: VERSUS

UGANDA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BEFORE:

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE C. M. KATO

O R D E R <table>

This file was passed to me for the purpose of confirming a sentence of 36 months imprisonment imposed upon the accused person Peter Itembe Palasi. The accused was charged with two counts one of which was for shop breaking contrary to section 283(a) of the Penal Code Act and the other was for theft contrary to section 252 of the Penal Code Act.

He pleaded guilty to both counts. He was sentenced to 12 months in respect of count 1 and 24 months for the second count. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively. The accused had two other convictions of similar nature which he admitted.

I have carefully considered the reasons which prompted the trial magistrate to impose the sentence which he did impose and I feel those reasons are quite sound. I consider the sentence imposed to be reasonable in all the circumstances of this case. I accordingly do confirm the consecutive sentence of 36 months.

> C. M. KATO JUDGE $5/7/93$

$\mathcal{A}^{(n,k)}=\bigcup_{\substack{1\leq i\leq n\\ 1\leq j\leq n}}$ $\mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L}$

$\cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$ $\mathbb{V}^{\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbb{R}} \oplus_{\mathbb{R}} \mathbb{V}_{\mathbb{R}} \oplus_{\mathbb{R}} \mathbb{V}^{\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbb{R}}$ $\mathcal{H}^{\prime}$

$\mathbb{L}_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{M}_{\mathbb{R}}(0) = \mathbb{H}$

submits a passes on a 3 month base of factors of CERSION AND LOCAL DAVISON'S Process to a 11 min and 12 th car person responsible the convention of the convention of $\sim$ 25 km was not a factor of Lag part to $\langle \hat{a} \rangle$ and the state of the text of the state of the state of of bayedon an at a base on a the life bat up binder are with using the particular to traiting the

uplay a meaning only of the theorem is breakned them with a final turn prime to the "d" in a liver sector profile but be all $\hat{V}$ : $\hat{w}$ $\rightarrow$ $\hat{w}$ $\hat{w}$ $\mathcal{P} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times \lfloor n \rfloor}$

uid beteening gutte Answer to do, or after U after the princial sangul ibi in felos scolus of a such sharing of the and as an instrumed to the figure in a manager to the property of an Fals) 16 Me ayusunay in "fase iuu est und Tage ook May Katelyak f

$\{P_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}$

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Penal Code Act, section 283(a)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Penal Code Act, section 252

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.