[2014] UGHCCRD 106
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 sentencing discretion must be exercised. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considered the aggravating factors, including the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] UGHCCRD 106
- Parties
- Applicant: Uganda; Respondent: Akandwanaho Nathan
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- High Court Criminal Session Case No.164 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Session / Mitigation and Re Sentencing
- Outcome
- convicted_and_sentenced
- Judges
- Murangira, J
- Legal Topics
- Murder Sentencing, Mitigation Factors, Death Penalty Reform, Remand Period Deduction
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Uganda
Applicant
Akandwanaho Nathan
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Session / Mitigation and Re Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the mandatory death penalty for murder is constitutional in light of recent Supreme Court decisions.
- 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the convict considering the mitigating and aggravating factors presented.
- 3 How should the period spent on remand before conviction be factored into the sentence.
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 sentencing discretion must be exercised. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considered the aggravating factors, including the brutality of the offence and its prevalence, as well as mitigating factors such as the convict being a first offender, his capacity to reform, and the three years spent on remand. The court found that while the offence warranted a severe sentence, the mitigating factors justified a reduction from the maximum. Accordingly, the court imposed a sentence of 37 years imprisonment,...
Court Disposition
convicted_and_sentenced
Orders
- The convict, Akandwanaho Nathan, is sentenced to 37 years imprisonment from the date of conviction.
- The period of 3 years spent on remand before conviction is deducted from the total sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**
**HIGH COURT CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO.164 OF 2014 (arising from HCT – Crim. No. 107 of 2001)**
**UGANDA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PROSECUTION**
**VERSUS**
**AKANDWANAHO NATHAN :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::CONVICT**
**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 convict. It should be noted that I was not the trial Judge in this case that involved the convict. The trial Judge was Hon. Mr. Justice V. T. Zehurikize (Retired). The convict was tried, convicted and sentenced to death by the aforestated Judge.
**1.2** The convict 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 convict 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 convict.**
**2.1** In sentencing the convict 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. 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 convict was convicted of murder which offence carries a maximum sentence of death. 6. The offence of murder is rampantly committed in Uganda. Hence the need to pass an appropriate sentences against the offenders. 7. From the facts of the case and the way the deceased was killed, the deceased suffered a bluttal death. The actions of the convict in relation to the murder of the deceased fall under paragraph 20 of the sentencing Guidelines (Supra). The submissions by Counsel for the prosecution brought out very well the aggravating factors, which put the case in rarest of the rare cases. 8. I have also considered the prison’s report, social inquiry report and the pre-sentence reports in respect of the convict and I have no doubt that the convict has the capacity to reform. 9. The convict is a first offender. 10. The convict spent about 3 years on remand before conviction, which period I have put into consideration in passing the sentence against convict.
In the result and for the reasons given hereinabove in this ruling, the convict deserved the death sentence. However, owing to the applicable law, this court has discretionary powers to pass a sentence of imprisonment on the convict. In the circumstances of this case and considering the mitigation factors presented by both counsel for the parties, I make a finding that the convict deserves an appropriate imprisonment sentence.
Thus, taking into account the 3 years period the convict spent on remand before conviction, I would have sentenced the convict to 40(forty) years imprisonment, but I deduct the said period the convict spent on remand before conviction. I therefore sentence the convict to 37 years imprisonment from the date of conviction.
Dated at Kampala this 16th day of July, 2014.
**Joseph Murangira**
**Judge.**