Appeal court trims defilement sentences over remand calculation
A panel of three Justices of Appeal, Hellen Obura, Jesse Byaruhanga Rugyema and Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti, set aside the sentences imposed on Saddam Okello Ocii and substituted them with reduced sentences.
Appeal court trims defilement sentences over remand calculation
_________________
The Court of Appeal has reduced the prison sentences imposed on a man convicted of aggravated defilement after finding that the High Court had not clearly demonstrated how the period he spent on remand had been deducted.
A panel of three Justices of Appeal, Hellen Obura, Jesse Byaruhanga Rugyema and Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti, set aside the sentences imposed on Saddam Okello Ocii and substituted them with reduced sentences.
The decision was delivered on September 18, 2026, in Criminal Appeal No. 0272 of 2017, arising from a decision of the High Court at Gulu.
Okello had been sentenced by Justice Vincent Okwanga on July 3, 2017, to 27 years' imprisonment on one count of aggravated defilement and 30 years on another count, with the sentences running concurrently.
The prosecution's case was that Okello, then aged 25, committed sexual acts against two girls aged eight and six on April 9, 2013, at Ogom ward in Nwoya district.
Court records indicate that Okello was a nephew of the victims' parents and had been living with them at their village home in Ogom-Patira village, Nwoya parish, Anaka subcounty, for about eight months.
The prosecution alleged that Okello took advantage of the parents' absence and defiled the two girls in turn.
Okello denied the charges, but the High Court convicted him on both counts and imposed the sentences.
He subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging the sentences on the ground that the trial judge had failed to deduct the period he had spent on remand.
During the appeal, his lawyer, Brian Sserunjogi, argued that Okello had spent four years and two months on remand and that the period ought to have been specifically deducted from the sentences.
The prosecution, represented by chief state attorney Joan Keko, opposed the appeal, arguing that the trial judge had expressly stated that the remand period had been taken into account.
The Court of Appeal considered Article 23(8) of the Constitution, which requires a period spent in lawful custody before trial to be taken into account when imposing a prison sentence.
The justices also considered the Supreme Court decision in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda, which held that the remand period must be specifically credited to an accused person.
The court said the sentencing court must clearly state the sentence imposed, the period spent on remand and the resultant sentence after the deduction.
The justices found that the manner in which the deduction was expressed left an ambiguity as to whether the remand period had actually been deducted from the sentences.
The court therefore set aside the sentences and exercised its powers under Section 11 of the Judicature Act to sentence Ocii afresh.
The court confirmed that Okello had spent four years, two months and 10 days on remand.
It consequently reduced the 27-year sentence on Count One to 22 years, nine months and 20 days' imprisonment.
The 30-year sentence on Count Two was reduced to 25 years, nine months and 20 days' imprisonment.
The sentences will run concurrently from July 3, 2017, the date on which Okello was convicted by the High Court.