Share
Uganda v Atiku & Anor (High Court Criminal Session Case No.155 of 2014) [2014] UGHCCRD 98 (16 July 2014)
- Citation
- [2014] UGHCCRD 98
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Murangira, J
- Case number
- High Court Criminal Session Case No.155 of 2014
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Murangira, J
- Case number
- High Court Criminal Session Case No.155 of 2014
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Attorney General v. Susan Kigula & 417 others, the mandatory death penalty for murder is unconstitutional and each case must be considered on its own merits with regard to mitigating factors. In this case, the convicts were first offenders, the victim survived and recovered from her injuries, and the convicts had already spent four years on remand. The facts did not place the case in the 'rarest of the rare' category warranting the maximum sentence. The court therefore imposed a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for each convict, deducting the period already served, and ordered their immediate release unless held on other lawful charges. Additionally, the court ordered each convict to pay compensation to the victim for the loss suffered.
Court disposition
Convicts sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment each, deemed served; immediate release ordered; compensation to victim ordered.
Orders
- Yuda Atiku is sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment from the date of conviction, deemed served; to be released unless held on other lawful charges.
- Banura David is sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment from the date of conviction, deemed served; to be released unless held on other lawful charges.
- Each convict is ordered to pay UGX 1,000,000 to the victim of crime as compensation within 30 days.
02
Material facts
Parties
Uganda
Applicant Counsel: Ms. Nalwanga SherifahYuda Atiku
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Senkezi StephenBanura David
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Senkezi StephenAmounts and remedies
- Compensation to Victim (per Convict): UGX 1,000,000
- Stolen Cash: UGX 400,000
- Stolen Property Value: UGX 800,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Session / Mitigation and Re Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the mandatory death penalty previously imposed on the convicts should be substituted with a mitigated sentence in light of the Supreme Court decision in Attorney General v. Susan Kigula & 417 others.
- 02
What is the appropriate sentence for the convicts considering the facts, mitigating factors, and time spent on remand.
- 03
Whether compensation should be awarded to the victim for loss suffered.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The prosecution, represented by Ms. Nalwanga Sherifah, submitted that the court should consider the gravity of the offence, the brutality of the assault, and the fact that the convicts stole money and property from the victim. The prosecution also referenced the relevant sentencing guidelines and Supreme Court decisions, but acknowledged the mitigating factors, including the convicts being first offenders and the victim's survival.
- Respondent
- The convicts, represented by Mr. Senkezi Stephen, argued for leniency based on their status as first offenders, the fact that the victim survived and recovered, their capacity for reform as indicated by pre-sentence reports, and the four years already spent on remand. Counsel emphasized that the case did not fall within the 'rarest of the rare' category warranting the maximum sentence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Attorney General v. Susan Kigula & 417 others, Constitutional Petition Appeal No. 3 of 2006
The mandatory death penalty for murder is unconstitutional and courts must consider mitigating factors in sentencing.
- 02
Constitutional (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, Legal Notice No.8 of 2013
Sentencing should take into account the gravity of the offence, mitigating factors, and time spent on remand.
- 03
Section 286(4) of the Penal Code Act, Cap 120 Laws of Uganda
Compensation to victims of crime may be ordered as part of the sentence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Attorney General v. Susan Kigula & 417 others, the mandatory death penalty for murder is unconstitutional and each case must be considered on its own merits with regard to mitigating factors. In this case, the convicts were first offenders, the victim survived and recovered from her injuries, and the convicts had already spent four years on remand. The facts did not place the case in the 'rarest of the rare' category warranting the maximum sentence. The court therefore imposed a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for each convict, deducting the period already served, and ordered their immediate release unless held on other lawful charges. Additionally, the court ordered each convict to pay compensation to the victim for the loss suffered.
Obiter and limits
- The court emphasized the importance of considering the capacity for reform in sentencing, as indicated by pre-sentence and social inquiry reports.
- The court noted that remission of sentence should be factored into the calculation of time served.
Court disposition
Convicts sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment each, deemed served; immediate release ordered; compensation to victim ordered.
- Yuda Atiku is sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment from the date of conviction, deemed served; to be released unless held on other lawful charges.
- Banura David is sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment from the date of conviction, deemed served; to be released unless held on other lawful charges.
- Each convict is ordered to pay UGX 1,000,000 to the victim of crime as compensation within 30 days.
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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO.155 OF 2014
(arising from HCT – Crim. No. 22 of 2004)
UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PROSECUTION
VERSUS
1. YUDA ATIKU 2. BANURA DAVID :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::CONVICTS
RULING BY HON. MR. JUSTICE JOSEPH MURANGIRA
1. Introduction
1.1 This matter was placed before me in a mitigation and re-sentencing session for sentencing the convicts. It should be noted that I was not the trial Judge in this case that involved the convicts. The trial Judge was Hon. Mr. Justice Lameck N. Mukasa. The convicts were tried, convicted and sentenced to death by the aforestated Judge.
1.2 The convicts came before the High Court for sentencing pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court of Uganda in Attorney General-vs-Susan Kigula & 417 others, constitutional Petition appeal No. 3 of 2006, which found that the previous mandatory death penalty regime was unconstitutional. Each convict who was subject to the automatic death sentence and not yet exhausted the appeal process was remitted to the High Court for mitigation and sentence, which was confirmed by the subsequent case of Ambaa Jacob & Another –vs-Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2009.
1.3 The prosecution is represented by the Directorate of Public Prosecutions. This matter was argued by Ms. Nalwanga Sherifah, State Attorney. Whereas, the convicts are represented by Mr. Senkezi Stephen of Senkezi, Saali Advocates & Consultants.
Both Counsel for the parties ably presented their mitigating factors in their submissions.
2. Sentencing the convicts.
2.1 In sentencing the convicts the following factors/reasons are considered:-
1. The cases of Attorney General-vs- Susan Kigula & 417 others (Supra) and Tigo Stephen –vs- Uganda Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2009.
2. All the mitigating factors submitted by both Counsel for the parties, which are on Court record.
3. The Constitutional (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, Legal Notice No.8 of 2013 particularly part 1 of the 3rd schedule.
4. For special emphasis, I have also considered the following factors:- 5. The convicts were convicted of murder, an offence that carries a maximum sentence of death.
6. From the facts of the case and the submissions by Counsel, though the victim was bluttally assaulted, she never died. She was admitted in Hospital, treated and recovered from the assault wounds. The facts of the case do not put this case in the rarest of the rare cases.
7. The convicts stole from the victims shs.400,000/= and property valued at Shs. 800,000/=.
8. The convicts are first offenders.
9. I have also considered the prison’s report, social inquiry report and the pre-sentence reports in respect of each convict and I have no doubt that the convicts have the capacity to reform.
10. Each convict spent about 4 years on remand before conviction, which period is taken into account in sentencing the convicts.
In the result and for the reasons given hereinabove in this ruling, I would have sentenced each convict to 14 (fourteen) years imprisonment, but I do deduct the period of 4 years each convict spent on remand. I therefore, sentence:-
1. Yuda Atiku to 10 years imprisonment from the date of conviction.
2. Banura David to 10 years imprisonment from the date of conviction.
Considering the days each convict would have got on remission of sentence, I order that each convict has already served the sentence. They should be released from custody hence with. Unless they are held on other lawful charges.
Dated at Kampala this 16th day of July, 2014.
……………………………………….
Joseph Murangira
Judge.
Court: Pursuant to Section 286 (4) of the Penal Code Act, Cap 120 Laws of Uganda, each convict is ordered to pay Shs. 1,000,000/= (one million shillings) only to the victim of crime as compensation for the loss suffered, within 30 days from today. This order shall be extracted by Counsel for the State and served on the victim’s next of keen within 14 days from today for execution purposes under the Civil Procedure Rules, S. I. 71-1.
Dated at Kampala this 16th day of July, 2014.
……………………………………….
Joseph Murangira
Judge.
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.