[2014] UGHCCRD 99
The court determined that while the offence of murder is grave and the convict's actions fit the aggravating factors warranting a severe sentence, the convict is a first offender and has demonstrated capacity for reform. The court also considered the three years spent on remand prior to conviction. Balancing these...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] UGHCCRD 99
- Parties
- Applicant: Uganda; Respondent: Kagwa Jackson
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- High Court Criminal Session Case No.177 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Session Case / Mitigation and Re Sentencing
- Outcome
- convict sentenced to 37 years imprisonment after mitigation and deduction of remand period
- Judges
- Murangira, J
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Sentencing Guidelines, Mitigation, Aggravating Factors, Remand Period, Re Sentencing
- 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
Kagwa Jackson
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Session Case / Mitigation and Re Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of death should be maintained or mitigated in light of the Supreme Court's directive and the Sentencing Guidelines.
- 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the convict considering the aggravating and mitigating factors presented.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that while the offence of murder is grave and the convict's actions fit the aggravating factors warranting a severe sentence, the convict is a first offender and has demonstrated capacity for reform. The court also considered the three years spent on remand prior to conviction. Balancing these factors, the court found that a sentence of 40 years imprisonment was appropriate, but after deducting the remand period, sentenced the convict to 37 years imprisonment from the date of conviction.
Court Disposition
convict sentenced to 37 years imprisonment after mitigation and deduction of remand period
Orders
- The convict, Kagwa Jackson, is sentenced to 37 years imprisonment from the date of conviction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**
**HIGH COURT CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO.177 OF 2014 (arising from HCT – Crim. No. 41 of 2003)**
**UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PROSECUTION**
**VERSUS**
**KAGWA JACKSON ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::CONVICT**
**RULING BY HON. MR. JUSTICE JOSEPH MURANGIRA**
**1. Introduction**
**1.1** The prosecution is represented by Ms. Nalwanga Sherifa, State Attorney. Whereas the convict is represented by Mr. Senkezi Stephen from Senkezi, Saali & Co. Advocates.
**1.2** This matter was placed before me for mitigation and re-sentencing in compliance with the case of Attorney General –vs- Susan Kigula & 417 others, constitutional Petition Appeal No. 3 of 2006. It should be noted that the trial Justice was Hon. Mr. Justice Lameck N. Mukasa. The convict was tried, convicted and sentenced to death by the aforestated Judge. This file was remitted to the High Court by the Supreme of Court of Uganda for the applicant to make submissions for mitigation on the sentence. Both Counsel for the parties addressed Court on mitigation for the sentence.
**2. Sentencing the convict**
In sentencing the convict the following factors have been considered:-
1. All the submissions on the sentence by both Counsel for the parties. 2. The convict was found guilty by the trial Court of murder which is a serious offence and it carries a maximum sentence of death. 3. From the mitigating factors adduced by Counsel for the state, it is clear that the convict planned to murder the deceased and all his actions during the killing of the deceased very well fit in the aggravating factors in paragraph 20 of the Sentencing Guidelines, legal notice No.8 of 2013. The convict deserved a death sentence. 4. The convict is a first offender. 5. I have considered also the prison’s report, social inquiring report and the pre-sentence report in connection with the convict, and I have no doubt that the convict has the capacity to reform. 6. The convict spent about 3 years on remand before conviction, which period I have taken into account in passing the sentence against the convict.
In the result, I would have sentenced the convict to 40 (forty) years imprisonment, but I do deduct the three (3) years the convict spent on remand. I therefore, sentence the convict to 37 (thirty seven) years imprisonment from the date of conviction.
Dated at Kampala this 16th day of July, 2014.
**……………………………………….**
**Joseph Murangira**
**Judge.**