Share
Maliro Abasi alias Mabale v Uganda [2019] UGSC 67 (10 December 2019)
- Citation
- [2019] UGSC 67
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Supreme Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Mwangusya, JSC, Arach-Amoko, JSC, Katureebe, CJ, Tumwesigye, JSC, Mwondha, JSC
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Mwangusya, JSC, Arach-Amoko, JSC, Katureebe, CJ, Tumwesigye, JSC, Mwondha, JSC
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court held that, in accordance with its prior decisions, all appeals against mandatory death sentences in capital offences that were lodged within the specified period must be remitted to the High Court for mitigation submissions. The appellant's case falls squarely within this category, as the appeal was lodged within the relevant timeframe. Consequently, the order of the Court of Appeal is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court for the appellant to make submissions in mitigation of sentence. The retirement of the original trial judge does not preclude another High Court judge from hearing the mitigation aspect.
Court disposition
Order of the Court of Appeal set aside; file remitted to the High Court for mitigation of sentence.
Orders
- The order of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
- The file is remitted to the High Court for the appellant to make submissions in mitigation of sentence.
- Any other Judge of the High Court may hear the mitigation aspect.
02
Material facts
Parties
Maliro Abasi alias Mabale
AppellantUganda
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Ruling on Sentence Remission
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the appeal falls within the category of cases requiring remission to the High Court for mitigation of sentence following the Supreme Court's decision in Attorney General v Susan Kugula and Ambaa Joseph v Uganda.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant's case was lodged within the period specified by the Supreme Court in Attorney General v Susan Kugula, thus should be remitted for mitigation of sentence.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not oppose the remission, as the Supreme Court's precedent applies to all such cases lodged within the specified period.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Attorney General v Susan Kugula (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2006); Ambaa Joseph v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2001 Supreme Court
Appeals against mandatory death sentences in capital offences lodged between 2005 and 21st January 2009 must be remitted to the High Court for submissions in mitigation of sentence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court held that, in accordance with its prior decisions, all appeals against mandatory death sentences in capital offences that were lodged within the specified period must be remitted to the High Court for mitigation submissions. The appellant's case falls squarely within this category, as the appeal was lodged within the relevant timeframe. Consequently, the order of the Court of Appeal is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court for the appellant to make submissions in mitigation of sentence. The retirement of the original trial judge does not preclude another High Court judge from hearing the mitigation aspect.
Court disposition
Order of the Court of Appeal set aside; file remitted to the High Court for mitigation of sentence.
- The order of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
- The file is remitted to the High Court for the appellant to make submissions in mitigation of sentence.
- Any other Judge of the High Court may hear the mitigation aspect.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2011
BETWEEN
MALIRO ABASI alias MABALE::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 10
$=$ VERSUS $=$
I Certify that this is a true Copy of the Original
REGISTR
UGANDA:::::::::: :::RESPONDENT
(CORAM: ARACH-AMOKO; MWANGUSYA; OPIO-AWERI; MUGAMBA; $15$ BUTEERA; JJ. S. C).
RULING OF THE COURT
According to the decision of this Court in Attorney General v Susan Kugula (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2006, 20 followed in Ambaa Joseph v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2001 Supreme Court, all appeals against the mandatory death sentence in capital offences which were lodged in the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court between 2005 and 21<sup>st</sup> January, 2009, when the Supreme 25 Court confirmed the decision in Kigula (supra), should be and have been remitted to the High Court for submissions in mitigation of the death sentence.
This case fall in that category since the appeal was lodged in the Court of Appeal within the said period.
For the foregoing reason, we set aside the order of the Court of Appeal.
We order that the file be remitted to the High Court for the appellant to make submission in mitigation of sentence.
Since Katutsi J, the trial Judge has since retired, this aspect $\mathsf{S}$ of the case can be heard by any other Judge of the High Court.
Dated at Kampala this 10<sup>th</sup> day of December, 2019.
Hon. Justice M. S. Arach-Amoko, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.
Hon. Justice Mwangusya, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
Hon. Justice Opio-Aweri, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
Hon. Justice Paul Mugamba, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
Hon. Justice Richard Buteera, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
| | Certify that this is a true | |-----------|-----------------------------| | | Copy of the Original | | REGISTRAR | DATE. | | | SUFFICIENT OF UGANDA |
$20$
$-30$
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.