The Court of Appeal has upheld a 27-year jail term for a man accused of killing a colleague on suspicion of having an affair with his wife, stealing his chickens and food.
Joseph Mugarura, alias Kyangwa, who was convicted of killing Richard Katambira in September 2015, had hoped the Court of Appeal would reduce his sentence, arguing he was a first-time offender with family responsibilities and that punishment was too harsh.
But a three-judge panel led by Deputy Chief Justice Moses Kazibwe Kawumi, with Justices Irene Mulyagonja and Jesse Byaruhanga Rugyema, has ruled that the 27-year prison term was appropriate, leaving him to continue serving his sentence.
“Having reviewed the cases above, it is our finding that the sentence that was handed down to the appellant was within the range of sentences that have been imposed for similar cases in this court and the Supreme Court,” the justices held.
“We accordingly see no need to interfere with the sentence of the trial court. The appellant shall continue to serve his sentence of 27 years imprisonment from 10th October 2018, the date on which he was first sentenced,” they ruled.
Court heard that Mugarura had a history of animosity with Katambira. He suspected Katambira of having a sexual relationship with his wife. There were also allegations that Katambira frequently stole his hens and food, further deepening hostility.
According to prosecution, Mugarura threatened to kill Katambira two days before the fatal incident.
On the night of September 18, 2015, Katambira was allegedly waylaid and murdered near the home of a woman identified as Kellen Bahali.
The incident was marked by a desperate cry for help. Bahali reportedly heard the dying man shout: “Kyangwa, you have killed me.”
Mugarura was subsequently arrested and charged with murder. Although he denied committing the offence, the High Court convicted him and, on October 7, 2018, sentenced him to 27 years in prison.
Dissatisfied, he appealed to Court of Appeal, arguing sentence was excessive compared with those imposed on other people convicted of similar offences.
During appeal, his lawyer Cosma Kateeba, appearing on state brief, argued that trial judge had failed to apply principle of consistency in sentencing.
Kateeba told court that his client was 47 years old at time of offence, was a first-time offender and had family responsibilities. He argued that a lengthy prison term could undermine objectives of punishment, particularly reform and rehabilitation.
He asked court to reduce sentence to 20 years and deduct period spent on remand before conviction, which he said would leave accused with 17 years to serve.
However, Chief State Attorney Fatina Nakafeero, representing Director of Public Prosecutions, opposed appeal. She argued that trial judge had properly considered both mitigating and aggravating circumstances before imposing sentence, with aggravating factors outweighing mitigating ones.
Prosecution maintained sentence was within applicable sentencing range for murder and urged court to uphold it.
In its judgment, justices examined previous decisions involving similar murder cases and noted that appellate courts may interfere with a sentence where it is illegal, manifestly excessive or where trial judge failed to consider an important factor.
However, they observed that appeal primarily concerned consistency in sentencing, rather than allegation that trial judge had ignored accused’s personal circumstances.
Court cited previous cases in which sentences of 25 and 27 years for murder had been upheld, alongside others in which longer sentences were reduced after being found excessive.
The justices emphasised that offenders convicted of similar crimes committed in comparable circumstances should receive consistent sentences.
‘We accordingly see no need to interfere with the sentence of the trial court,’ the justices ruled.