Court reduces man’s sentence for murdering girlfriend by nine years
The justices held that the trial judge had failed to demonstrate that the one year and seven months Abonga spent in lawful custody before his conviction had been taken into account when determining his sentence.
Abonga had been convicted of murder contrary to Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act and sentenced to 45 years’ imprisonment by the High Court in Gulu on June 24, 2014. (File photo)
________________
The Court of Appeal has reduced the 45-year jail sentence imposed on a man convicted of murdering his girlfriend in Gulu district to 36 years and five months, after finding that the trial judge failed to consider the period he had spent on remand.
In a judgment delivered on November 3, 2026, a panel of three justices, comprising Eva Luswata, Asa Mugenyi and Musa Ssekaana, substituted Patrick Abonga’s 45-year sentence with 36 years and five months’ imprisonment.
The justices held that the trial judge had failed to demonstrate that the one year and seven months Abonga spent in lawful custody before his conviction had been taken into account when determining his sentence.
In Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 2015, the court relied on Article 23(8) of the Constitution, which requires courts to consider the period an accused person spends in lawful custody before the conclusion of their trial when imposing a custodial sentence.
Abonga had been convicted of murder contrary to Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act and sentenced to 45 years’ imprisonment by the High Court in Gulu on June 24, 2014.
He had also faced a rape charge contrary to Sections 123 and 124 of the Penal Code Act but was acquitted of the offence.
The appeal arose from the conviction and sentence imposed by Justice John Eudes Keitirima.
According to court records, on September 6, 2012, the deceased, Mary Acen, attended a disco at Pajimo Trading Centre with her cousin.
At the venue, they met Abonga and four of his colleagues. Acen reportedly introduced Abonga to her cousin as her boyfriend.
At around midnight, Acen left the dance hall with Abonga and his colleagues. When she failed to return, her cousin searched for her but could not find her.
Her body was discovered the following morning, September 7, 2012, in a sorghum garden.
Evidence presented during the trial indicated that Acen had been gang-raped before she was killed.
Abonga was subsequently arrested and charged with rape and murder. He was convicted of murder but acquitted of rape.
In his appeal, Abonga challenged the 45-year sentence, arguing that it was harsh and excessive.
Through his lawyer, Paul Julius Layoo, he argued that the trial judge had failed to consider the one year and seven months he had spent on remand before sentencing him.
Layoo asked the appellate court to reduce the sentence, arguing that Abonga was a first-time offender and that previous decisions in murder cases had imposed prison terms ranging between 20 and 30 years.
He cited the case of Turyahika Joseph versus Uganda, in which the court considered sentences of between 20 and 30 years appropriate in murder cases, unless exceptional circumstances justified a different sentence.
The prosecution, represented by Chief State Attorney Awali Kizito, conceded that the trial judge had not demonstrated that the remand period was considered.
However, the State argued that the 45-year sentence was appropriate given the circumstances surrounding the murder.
It asked the Court of Appeal to maintain the sentence but deduct the one year and seven months Abonga had spent on remand.
The justices also cited the Supreme Court decision in Rwabugande Moses versus Uganda, which held that accounting for the period spent on remand requires a sentencing court to subtract that period from the final sentence.
They noted that although the Supreme Court decision was delivered in 2017, after Abonga's conviction, the requirement to consider the period spent in lawful custody was already provided for under Article 23(8) of the Constitution.
The justices observed that the trial judge's sentencing remarks did not make reference to the one year and seven months Abonga had spent in custody.
The prosecution also conceded that the omission rendered the sentence illegal.
The Court of Appeal consequently set aside the 45-year sentence and proceeded to re-sentence Abonga under Section 11 of the Judicature Act.
In determining the appropriate sentence, the justices considered the mitigating and aggravating circumstances presented before the court.
They noted that Abonga was a first offender and was aged 25 at the time of the offence. The court also considered that he had a wife and children who depended on him for support.
On the aggravating circumstances, the justices considered the circumstances surrounding the murder, the fact that the deceased was his girlfriend and that he had been convicted after a full trial.
The court also noted the trial judge's observation that Abonga had shown no remorse.
The court consequently allowed the appeal on sentence and substituted the original 45-year jail term with 36 years and five months' imprisonment.