[2025] UGCA 32

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

## IN TH E COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA Co on -Ntende B aki Cheb rion and M CRIMINAL APPEAL 04 0F 2023

(Arising from High Court Criminal Appeat OO1 of 2O18 at Mukono Aising from the Chief Magistrate's Court of Kagunga Criminal Case 4os of 201s.)

## 1. MUKASASTEPHEN

2, MVZAALE, PETER ...... APPELLANTS

#### VERSUS

UGANDA RESPONDENT

#### REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

## 1. INTRODUCTION

When this appeal came up for hearing on 23rd July 2024, we allowed the appeal against the sentences and ordered the immediate release of the appellants. we said we shall give our reasons later and we now do so. The reasons for this judgment are in respect of a second appeal arising from the decision of Nakachwa Florence J. delivered on 31"1 october 2022 wl.ich arose from criminal Appeal o1 of 20 18 which was heard in a magistrate's court and the appellant were convicted for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to sections 219 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years on 10th January 201g. 20 25

on appeal, Florence Nakachwa J. altered the sentence of the appellants from ⁷ and 8 years for the 1st and 2"d appellant to 3 years from the date of Judgement. The question we had to determine was whether the sentence of 3 years was supposed to run from the date the appellants were sentenced in the magistrate,s

pg1

court of loth January 2o1o or from the date of judgment in the High court on the 3 l"t October 2020.

# 2. BACKGROUND

Briefly, the facts of the appeal are that on 9th September 2O19 the appellants assaulted one charles Nkuruziza at Mpalabule Trading centre leaving him unconscious. The appellants were arrested and charged before Her worship Agnes Nambafu in the chief Magistrates court of Mukono at Kayunga with causing grievous harm contrary to S. 219 of the Penal Code Act Cap 120' They were convicted as charged and were sentenced to six and seven year's imprisonment consecutivelY.

The appellants being aggrieved appealed to the High court. The High court 15 partially allowed the appeal and reduced the appellalts' sentence to 3 years of imprisonment for each of the appellants, which was to run from 3l"t october 2022 t:ne day she delivered the judgment on appeal. The appellants aggrieved by the sentence filed this aPPeal

# 20 Representation

At the hearing of the appeal on 23.d Jttly 2024, the appellants were represented by Mr. Wassanyi Sepi while the respondent '&as represented by Ms' Vicky Nabisenke Assistant Director of Public Prosecution who was holding brief for Mr. Sam Oola Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecution for the respondent.

# 3. GROUNDS FORAPPEAL

The appellants raised the following grounds of appeal:

- 1. That the learned trial Judge erred in law and fact when she meted out manifesfly harsh and excessive sentence against the appellants. - 2. The learned trial Judge erred in law when she meted an illegal sentence on the appellants.

### 4. ISSUES

1. Whether the sentences meted on the accused were manifestly harsh and 10 excessive?

#### SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES

15 On the date of hearing on 23.d July 2024, we agreed to consider the submissions ofthe parties. However, this may not be necessary as the respondent conceded that the time spent on remand was not deducted. Therefore, it may not be necessary to repeat the submissions.

8. DETERMINATION

The respondent during the hearing in court conceded to ground 2 of tine supplementary memorandum of the appeal which stated that the trial judge erred in 1aw when she meted an illegal sentence on the appellants. The said ground was in relation to the time spent on remand by the appellants who contended that it was not deducted. The respondent having conceded that the time spent on remand we set aside the illegal sentence and imposed a fresh one.

We considered both the aggravating ald mitigating factors on record as well as the period spent on remand. We noted that the appeliants were elderly men around 55 and 56 years of age at the time of sentencing. The 1"t appellant was a chairperson of a Local Council 1 at the time of sentencing. They were first

pc. 3

offenders. Taking into consideration of factors such as their age, we concluded that the sentence of 3 years imprisonment was appropriate sentence.

5 We took into consideration the time spent on remand and in lawful custody. The 1st appellant served 23 days on remand. The 2"d appellant and 3'd appellants served 882 days. The 3 years is supposed to run from the date of conviction and sentence in the trial magistrate's court on 10th January 2018 and not from the date the appeal was decided. When we computed the period spent on remand from the 3 years from the date of conviction it was obvious that the appellants haC fu1ly served their sentences. They should have been released before 2021. Therefore, the continuous detention of the appellants was unnecessary ald uncalled for. We therefore allowed the appeal and ordered their immediate 10

15 )^ Dated at Kampata thi"...-15... day..... 2025

release when the matter came up for hearing on 23'd Jttly 2024.

ck Egon -Nte

Justice of Appeal

L

Barishakl Cheborion

Justlce of Appeal

yi

Justice of Appeal

20