Uganda Case Law

Muweesi v Uganda

Muweesi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 204 of 2016) [2023] UGCA 173 (7 June 2023)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 204 of 2016

The Court found that the trial Judge failed to deduct the period the appellant spent on remand from the sentences for aggravated robbery and murder, rendering the sentences illegal under Article 23(8) of the Constitution. The appellate court set aside the original sentences and exercised its powers under Section 11 of the Judicature Act to sentence the appellant afresh, deducting the 11 months spent on remand from both sentences. The appellant was ordered to serve 9 years and one month for aggravated robbery and 19 years and one month for murder, with both sentences running concurrently from…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Illegality
• Remand Period Deduction
• Aggravated Robbery
• Murder
• Constitutional Rights In Sentencing

No. 32732 PC Kakuru Pascal V Uganda

No. 32732 PC Kakuru Pascal V Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 507 of 2017) [2019] UGCA 156 (20 June 2019)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 507 of 2017

Judge

Madrama, JA, Egonda-Ntende, JA, Obura, JA

The Court of Appeal reduced a murder sentence after finding the High Court failed to deduct the exact remand period under Article 23(8) of the Constitution.

• Sentencing Principles
• Remand Period Deduction
• Murder
• Appeal On Sentence
• Constitutional Rights In Sentencing
• Criminal-sentencing

Lukwago v Uganda (Crim Appeal No. 165 of 2009)

Lukwago v Uganda (Crim Appeal No. 165 of 2009) [2012] UGCA 51 (13 December 2012)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Crim Appeal No. 165 of 2009

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing to consider and expressly state the period the appellant spent on remand prior to conviction, as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's guidelines in Katende Ahamad v Uganda. The omission was not excused by counsel's failure to raise the issue at trial; the obligation is on the court. The appeal succeeded on this ground. However, given the seriousness of the offence and the absence of a cross-appeal by the state, the Court maintained the original sentence of nine years but ordered that the period of…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Guidelines
• Remand Period Credit
• Aggravated Defilement
• Constitutional Rights In Sentencing

Umar Sebidde v Uganda

Umar Sebidde v Uganda [2004] UGSC 4 (14 January 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge's sentence of '11 years imprisonment period on remand inclusive' was ambiguous and did not comply with Article 23(8) of the Constitution, which requires that the period spent on remand be taken into account in imposing sentence. The Court found that the intention must have been to deduct the three years spent on remand from the total sentence. The Court of Appeal erred by maintaining the 11-year sentence without proper deduction for remand time. The Supreme Court substituted the sentence with 8 years, to be served from the date of the original sente…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Principles
• Remand Period Deduction
• Appeals On Sentence
• Constitutional Rights In Sentencing