Defilement convict’s sentence reduced from 40 to 28 years

_______________

The Court of Appeal has reduced the sentence of a man who had earlier been sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment for defilement.

On July 19, 2022, Benon Nantamba was convicted by High Court Judge Victoria Katamba in Masaka on charges of defiling a two-year-and-five-month-old child.

He appealed, arguing that the punishment imposed by the trial court was excessive and harsh.

In a judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal on March 3, 2026, a panel comprising Hellen Obura, Esta Nambayo and Margaret Tibulya partially allowed the appeal.

According to the court record, Nantamba sneaked into the house where the child was sleeping and defiled the child, and was later seen fleeing by the victim’s brother immediately afterwards. The baby was found crying, and upon checking, they discovered that she was bleeding in her private parts.

The Court dismissed the first ground of appeal that the prosecution has failed to prove that he defiled the girl, but upheld the second ground, which challenged the severity of the sentence.

In their decision, the Justices observed that the 40-year sentence imposed by the trial court fell outside the range of sentences handed down in comparable cases.

“We find the sentence of forty years’ imprisonment imposed by the trial court to be excessive as it falls outside the range of sentences imposed in comparable cases. We consider a sentence of thirty-two years’ imprisonment to be appropriate,” the Court held.

Invoking Section 11 of the Judicature Act, which vests the Court with the powers of the trial court, including the authority to pass an appropriate sentence, the Justices set aside the 40-year term and substituted it with 32 years’ imprisonment.

The Court further took into account the period the appellant had spent on remand prior to conviction. After deducting that time, the judges ordered that the appellant will now serve 28 years, 11 months and 17 days in prison. The sentence will run from the date of conviction.

“The appeal was therefore partially successful, with the conviction standing but the sentence reduced to reflect what the Court described as a more appropriate and proportionate punishment,” the justices said.