[2015] UGHCCRD 68
The court held that, following the declaration of the mandatory death penalty as unconstitutional, sentencing for murder must be individualized, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors. The planned and brutal nature of the murder constituted significant aggravation, placing the case among the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] UGHCCRD 68
- Parties
- Applicant: Uganda; Respondent: Kaija Stephen
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- High Court Criminal Session Case No.175 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Session / Sentencing After Conviction for Murder; Resentencing Following Constitutional Challenge to Mandatory Death Penalty
- Outcome
- convict sentenced to 38 years' imprisonment from the date of conviction, with credit for time spent on remand
- Judges
- Murangira, J
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Sentencing Guidelines, Mitigation, Death Penalty, Remand Credit
- 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
Kaija Stephen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Session / Sentencing After Conviction for Murder; Resentencing Following Constitutional Challenge to Mandatory Death Penalty
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the convict should be sentenced to death or a term of imprisonment following the declaration of the mandatory death penalty as unconstitutional.
- 2 What mitigating and aggravating factors should be considered in determining the appropriate sentence for the convict.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, following the declaration of the mandatory death penalty as unconstitutional, sentencing for murder must be individualized, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors. The planned and brutal nature of the murder constituted significant aggravation, placing the case among the rarest of rare. However, the convict's status as a first offender, positive reports regarding his capacity for reform, and the two years spent on remand were substantial mitigating factors. Balancing these considerations, the court determined that a custodial sentence of 40 years was appropriate, less the period spent on remand, resulting in a final sentence of 38 years'...
Court Disposition
convict sentenced to 38 years' imprisonment from the date of conviction, with credit for time spent on remand
Orders
- The convict is sentenced to 38 years' imprisonment from the date of conviction.
- The two years spent on remand are deducted from the total sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**
**HIGH COURT CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO.175 OF 2014 (arising from HCT – Crim. No. 69 of 2003)**
**UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PROSECUTION**
**VERSUS**
**KAIJA STEPHEN :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::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 is before me for mitigation and sentence of the convict. It should be noted that the trial Judge of the convict was Hon. Mr. Justice Lameck N. Mukasa. The trial Court sentenced the convict to death, which the mandatory death penalty regime was declared unconstitutional in the case of Attorney General –vs- Susan Kagula & 417 others, Constitutional Petition Appeal No.3 of 2006. This matter, was therefore, sent to the High Court for sentencing. Both Counsel addressed Court on the mitigating factors for sentencing the convict.
**2. Sentencing the convict**
In sentencing the convict the following factors have been considered:-
1. All the submissions in mitigation by both Counsel for the parties. 2. The submissions by Counsel for the prosecution brought out very well the aggravating factors against the convict that place this case in the rarest of rare cases. The convict would deserve a death sentence. 3. The convict was convicted of murder, which offence carries a maximum sentence of death. Thus, it is a serious offence. 4. The facts of the case and the circumstances in which the deceased was murdered show that the killing was planned and brutal at the same time. The actions of the convict during the killing of the deceased all fit very well in paragraph 20 of the sentencing guidelines, legal notice No.8 of 2013. 5. The convict is a first offender. 6. I have also considered the prison’s report, the social inquiry report and pre-sentence report in relation to the convict and I have no doubt that the convict has the capacity to reform. 7. The convict spent about 2 years on remand before conviction.
In the result, I would have sentenced the convict to 40 (forty) years imprisonment, but I do deduct the two (2) years the convict spent on remand before conviction. Therefore, the convict is sentenced to 38 (thirty eight) years imprisonment from the date of conviction.
Dated at Kampala this 16th day of July, 2014.
**Joseph Murangira**
**Judge.**