Last updated on August 16th, 2024 at 10:34 am
Date of Judgement: 7th June, 2024
Court: Court of Appeal
Case Number: (Criminal Appeal 277 of 2010) [2024]
Judge (s): Justices; Richard Buteera (Deputy Chief Justice), Eva Luswata, Oscar John Kihika.
Main Topic (s): Consideration of pre-trial period spent on remand in Sentencing
Summary Facts of the Case
This case concerned the legality and appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the High Court of Luwero on the appellant, Byabaliho Fabian, for the offenses of murder and aggravated robbery – without the Court factoring in the period he had spent on remand pre-trial.
On August 14, 2009, Byabaliho Fabian hired Mawerere Julius, a bodaboda rider, to take him to a destination in the Luweero District.
During the journey, Byabaliho stabbed Julius in the chest, and beat him in the chest and thigh, resulting in broken ribs and ultimately, Julius’s death.
Byabaliho then stole Julius’s motorcycle. The body was discovered by locals and identified by another rider.
Byabaliho was arrested, admitted to the crimes, and led police to the motorcycle where he had hidden it.
He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 28 years’ imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently.
Legal Issues Before the Court
Whether the sentence was legal?
The decision of the Court
The Court of Appeal revised the sentence, deducting the period Byabaliho had spent on remand.
The appellant’s sentence was adjusted to 26 years and 10 months’ imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently from the date of the original sentencing.
The court’s decision centered on the fact that the trial judge, Justice Benjamin Kabiito (as he was then), had erred by not considering the time Byabaliho spent on remand while sentencing him.
The appellate court reasoned that factoring in this period during sentencing is mandatory and not discretionary per Article 23(8) of the Constitution of Uganda.
Key Quote: “Where a person is convicted and sentenced for a term of imprisonment for an offense, any period he or she spends in lawful custody in respect of the offense before the completion of his or her
trial shall be taken into account in imposing the term of imprisonment.” – Article 23 (8) of the Constitution of Uganda.
Counsel on Record
For the Appellant: Mr. Muhammed Mbalire
For the Respondent: Ms. Immaculate Angutuko, Chief State Attorney, and Mr. Asiimwe Arnold, State Attorney, both from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. (ODPP).
Law Applied By the Court
- Article 23(8) of the Constitution of Uganda: Consideration of the period spent on Remand is mandatory.
- Section 11 of the Judicature Act: Concerning the appellate court’s authority to adjust sentences.
Conclusion:
This judgment reinforces the legal principle that a trial court must consider the period a convict has spent on remand to ensure the fairness and legality of a sentence it imposes.
Key Quote: “We find that the sentences of 28 years imprisonment imposed on the appellant are illegal for failure to comply with a mandatory constitutional provision. We accordingly set the sentences aside.” – Court of Appeal