Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Uganda v Lukwebe (Criminal Session 346 of 2020) [2024] UGHC 280 (11 April 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the accused, Lukwebe Edrisa, was convicted on his own plea of guilty for aggravated defilement of a 7-year-old victim. The court weighed aggravating factors, including the tender age of the victim, repeated and premeditated acts, and established trauma supported by medical evidence. Mitigating factors included the accused's lack of prior criminal record, remorse, and early plea, which saved judicial time. Referencing appellate court guidelines, the court determined that a sentence of 16 years imprisonment was appropriate for the offence. After deducting the period of 3 years and 10 months spent on remand, the operative sentence was set at 12 years and 2 months imprisonment.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • The accused is sentenced to 16 years imprisonment for aggravated defilement.
  • After deducting 3 years and 10 months spent on remand, the accused will serve 12 years and 2 months imprisonment from today.
  • The convict is advised of the right to appeal the sentence within 14 days.

02

Material facts

Parties

Uganda

Applicant

Lukwebe Edrisa

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence Imposed Years: 16
  • Remand Period Years: 3.83
  • Operative Sentence Years: 12.17

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Session / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The prosecution argued that the victim was only 7 years old, in primary one, and the accused was 26 years old, old enough to be her parent. The accused was a neighbor and well known to the victim. The victim suffered trauma as a result of the defilement, which may make it difficult for her to return to normal. The prosecution recommended a deterrent sentence of 15 years.
Respondent
The defence submitted that the accused was remorseful, had no past criminal record, and was a first-time offender. He did not deny the offence at arrest. He was 26 years old and capable of reforming, and a family man with a wife and a 9-year-old child. Defence argued trauma was not proved due to lack of medical report and prayed for a sentence of 13 years after deduction of remand period.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Penal Code Act, Cap 120, section 129(3)(4)(a)

    Sentencing for aggravated defilement must consider the nature of the offence, aggravating and mitigating factors, and consistency with appellate court precedents.

  2. 02

    Tiboruhanga Emmanuel vs. Uganda, Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 0655 of 2014

    Sentences for aggravated defilement without additional aggravating factors generally range between 11 to 15 years.

  3. 03

    Byera Denis Vs Uganda, Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2012

    Where additional aggravating factors exist, such as victim's age or repeated acts, higher sentences may be justified.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the accused, Lukwebe Edrisa, was convicted on his own plea of guilty for aggravated defilement of a 7-year-old victim. The court weighed aggravating factors, including the tender age of the victim, repeated and premeditated acts, and established trauma supported by medical evidence. Mitigating factors included the accused's lack of prior criminal record, remorse, and early plea, which saved judicial time. Referencing appellate court guidelines, the court determined that a sentence of 16 years imprisonment was appropriate for the offence. After deducting the period of 3 years and 10 months spent on remand, the operative sentence was set at 12 years and 2 months imprisonment.

Obiter and limits

  • The need for consistency in sentencing is vital to maintain public confidence in the justice system.
  • The convict is advised of his right to appeal the sentence within 14 days from the date of judgment.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • The accused is sentenced to 16 years imprisonment for aggravated defilement.
  • After deducting 3 years and 10 months spent on remand, the accused will serve 12 years and 2 months imprisonment from today.
  • The convict is advised of the right to appeal the sentence within 14 days.

Source and reliance status

High 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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2024] UGHC 280

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MUKONO CRIMINAL SESSION NUMBER 0346 OF 2020 UGANDA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: VERSUS

LUKWEBE EDIRISA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

SENTENCE AND REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The Accused, Lukwebe Edrisa was convicted of the offence of Aggravated Defilement contrary to section $129(3)(4)(a)$ of the Penal Code Act, Cap 120 as amended.

On the 8<sup>th</sup> April 2024 Accused appeared for Plea taking and when the court read the indictment to him he stated that he knew the offence. The summary of the case was read to him by the Prosecution and he stated that there was no lie in the facts. The Court entered a plea of guilty against him and he was convicted as indicted.

The Prosecution in aggravation submitted that although there was no past criminal record, the victim was aged 7 years and was in primary one at the time the offence was committed and the convict being 26years of age was old enough to be her parent. That the convict was a neighbor as they lived in the same village and he was well known to the victim. Lastly that the victim had suffered trauma as a result of the defilement and it

11/4/2024

may be difficult for her to return to her normal self. The prosecution prayed for a deterrent sentence.

Prosecution submitted and recommended a sentence of 15 years.

The defence in mitigation submitted that the convict was remorseful and this was reflected even at the time of arrest as he did not deny committing the offence; he had no past criminal record and was a first time offender. Additionally that at the time of commission of the offence he was 26years old and therefore capable of reforming. Lastly that he was a family man with a wife and child who was only 9 years old.

In regard to the trauma allegedly suffered by the victim defence was of the view that trauma had not been proved since there was no medical report indicating trauma. He prayed for 13 years after deduction of the period spent on remand.

I have put all the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case as submitted on by the both the prosecution and defence counsel into consideration.

Sentence:

It is vital to consider the circumstances surrounding the case while imposing a sentence for example, the nature of the offence, whether it was fully tried or not, the aggravating and mitigating factors as put forth by the prosecution and the defence and the need for consistency in sentences which have already been imposed and maintained by the Appellant courts.

11/4/2024

In the instant case, I make reference to the following cases,

In Byera Denis Vs Uganda, Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2012, the Court of Appeal substituted a sentence of 30 years imprisonment with one of 20 years imprisonment it considered appropriate in a case of aggravated defilement. In that case, the victim was aged 3 years. The accused had been on remand for 1 year and 8 months. In Tiboruhanga Emmanuel vs. Uganda, Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 0655 of 2014, the Court of Appeal stated that the sentences approved by this Court in previous aggravated defilement cases, without additional aggravating factors, range between 11 years to 15 years. The Court considered the fact that the appellant was HIV positive as an additional aggravating factor and that by committing a sexual act on the victim while HIV positive, exposed her to the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. The Court imposed a sentence of 25 years imprisonment after deducting 3 years spent on remand, the convict was to serve 22 years in totality.

In the circumstances of this case, the victim was of tender age being only 7 years at time of commission of the offence; there was repeated defilement of the victim which was premeditated as the convict used to give the victim Shs. 200/ $=$ or Shs. 300/ $=$ after defiling her. The medical report PEx 1 shows that the victim needs to attend clinic for counselling and treatment therefore trauma was established.

11/04/2024

$\overline{3}$

On the other hand, I take note of the fact that the convict is a first time offender and he did not waste the time of the court.

I consider a sentence of 16 years imprisonment to be appropriate. After taking into account the period of 3 years 10 months already spent in custody, the convict will now serve a sentence of imprisonment of 12 years 2 months starting today.

The convict is advised that he has a right of Appeal against the sentence within 14 days from today.

Dated this 11<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2024 at Mukono.

Christine Kaahwa

JUDGE

$\frac{1}{2}$

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.

Byera Denis Vs Uganda, Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2012

Case cited

Tiboruhanga Emmanuel vs. Uganda, Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 0655 of 2014

Case cited

Penal Code Act, Cap 120, section 129(3)(4)(a)

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.