Court upholds three-year jail term for sh216m telecom battery theft
The court heard that on March 23, 2023, Kasirye and Mukwaya, together with others who remain at large, entered the fenced site of Buloba Tower in Bbira-Nakabugo Village, Wakiso District.
Court upholds three-year jail term for sh216m telecom battery theft
_________________
The High Court has upheld three-year prison sentence imposed on two men convicted of stealing 16 lithium batteries worth sh216m from a telecommunications mast in Wakiso.
Justice Gadenya Paul Wolimbwa dismissed an appeal by Charles Kasirye and Hamdan Mukwaya, ruling that the sentences imposed by the Makindye Chief Magistrate’s Court were lawful and not manifestly harsh or excessive.
The two were convicted for tampering with and removing telecommunications installations, theft and criminal trespass after they admitted the offences.
The court heard that on March 23, 2023, Kasirye and Mukwaya, together with others who remain at large, entered the fenced site of Buloba Tower in Bbira-Nakabugo Village, Wakiso District.
They tampered with the telecommunications installation and removed 16 lithium batteries belonging to American Tower Corporation.
The batteries were valued at sh216m.
The Chief Magistrate sentenced each of them to three years’ imprisonment on the first count, three years on theft and six months for criminal trespass, with the sentences running concurrently.
The court deducted the 15 days the men had spent on remand, leaving them to serve an effective two years, 11 months and 15 days.
They also argued that they had pleaded guilty and expressed remorse.
However, Justice Wolimbwa found that the trial court had considered their guilty pleas and remorse.
He noted that the two had initially denied the charges and only changed their pleas after five prosecution witnesses had testified.
The judge said the benefit of a guilty plea diminishes when it is entered late in the proceedings.
Justice Wolimbwa also rejected the State’s assertion that the appellants had previous convictions, saying there was no evidence on record showing that any previous convictions had been put to them, admitted or proved.
He therefore treated them as first offenders.
On their family responsibilities, the judge said the imprisonment would affect their 14 children but held that such circumstances could only amount to modest mitigation given the gravity of the offences.
The judge further found that the theft was serious because the batteries were not ordinary property but part of the power system supporting a telecommunications mast.
He said their removal could compromise communications services, including emergency calls, access to health facilities and mobile money transactions.
“The loss falls not on the operator alone but on every subscriber within the mast’s footprint,” the judge observed.
Justice Wolimbwa said the offence was aggravated by the fact that the men breached a fenced and secured site and acted together to remove 16 batteries in a single operation.
He noted that the three-year sentence on the telecommunications offence represented three-fifths of the five-year maximum, while the same sentence for theft was less than a third of the 10-year maximum.
The judge said the sentences therefore fell within the range properly open to the trial court.
He also found that the trial court had complied with the constitutional requirement to deduct the period the appellants spent in lawful custody before trial.
Justice Wolimbwa consequently dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentences in their entirety.
He informed the appellants of their right to appeal to the Court of Appeal on matters of law within the prescribed period.