The Court of Appeal has upheld a 26-year-and-five-month prison sentence handed to a father who repeatedly defiled his 10-year-old biological daughter, warning against the abuse of parental trust to sexually exploit vulnerable children.
A panel comprising Deputy Chief Justice Moses Kazibwe Kawumi and Justices of Appeal Irene Mulyagonja and Jesse Byaruhanga Rugyema dismissed an appeal by Kisembo Mayitene, who had challenged his sentence as harsh and excessive.
In their judgment, the justices ruled that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate, fair and consistent with punishments handed down in similar cases of aggravated defilement.
‘The appellant shall continue to serve his sentence of 26 years and 5 months’ imprisonment as imposed by the trial court. It is so ordered,’ the justices ruled.
Mayitene was convicted of aggravated defilement and sentenced by the High Court in Fort Portal on October 27, 2020, after he was found guilty of sexually abusing his daughter at Twezane LC1, Buhundu Parish, Bukonzo Sub-county, Bundibugyo District.
According to the prosecution case outlined in the judgment, Mayitene would go to his daughter’s bed at night and defile her while warning her against disclosing the abuse to anyone.
The abuse eventually came to light when the child reported the ordeal to her brother, who informed the village LC1 chairperson. Mayitene was subsequently arrested and prosecuted.
He denied the offence during the trial but was convicted and sentenced to 28 years’ imprisonment, from which the trial judge deducted one year and seven months spent on remand, leaving him with 26 years and five months to serve.
Dissatisfied with the sentence, Mayitene appealed, arguing through his lawyer, Samuel Muhumuza, that the punishment was manifestly harsh and excessive.
His lawyer asked the appellate court to reduce the sentence to 12 years, arguing that the trial judge had failed to give sufficient consideration to mitigating circumstances, including his status as a first-time offender and his responsibility to care for his other children.
Muhumuza also cited previous decisions in which courts had imposed shorter prison terms for aggravated defilement, arguing that consistency in sentencing required a reduction.
However, the prosecution, represented by Happiness Ainebyona, opposed the appeal, maintaining that the sentence was justified by the circumstances of the offence.
The prosecution argued that Mayitene had repeatedly abused his own daughter, whom he was expected to protect, and that the sentence was necessary to deter similar offences.
The appellate justices agreed with the prosecution, finding that the trial judge had properly considered both aggravating and mitigating factors before arriving at the sentence.
In sentencing Mayitene, the trial judge noted that the victim was only 10 years old, while her father was 48, creating an age difference of 38 years.
The judge observed that the child was particularly vulnerable because of her age and could not make informed decisions about her life.
The court also found that Mayitene had abused the special relationship of trust between a father and daughter instead of fulfilling his responsibility to protect the child and her siblings.
Although he was a first-time offender and a father of other children, the trial judge concluded that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors.
The Court of Appeal further examined previous decisions involving fathers convicted of defiling their daughters.
It cited a case in which a 25-year sentence was upheld for a man who defiled his four-year-old daughter, another in which a 37-year sentence was upheld for defiling a 14-year-old daughter, and a separate case involving a nine-year-old daughter in which a 27-year sentence was maintained.
The justices said these decisions demonstrated that the sentence imposed on Mayitene fell within the range of punishments previously upheld for similar offences.
‘In the instant case, the Appellant had been in the habit of defiling his 10-year-old daughter while issuing threats to her in case she reported. The trial judge found that a sentence of 28 years’ imprisonment was appropriate but upon the mandatory deduction of the pre-trial remand period, the Appellant was handed a resultant imprisonment sentence of 26 years and 5 months which we find to be fair, appropriate and in line with the principle of consistency and uniformity in sentencing,’ the court observed.
The judges consequently found no justification to interfere with the sentence, holding that the appeal had substantially failed.
Mayitene will therefore continue serving his 26-year-and-five-month prison term.