The Court of Appeal has emphasized the procedural requirements for lodging an appeal as stipulated under Section 28(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which mandates that an appeal must be initiated by a written notice, signed by the appellant or their advocate, and filed with the Registrar within 14 days from the date of judgment or order being appealed.
Facts
The appellant was indicted for murder and aggravated robbery under Uganda’s Penal Code Act. He pleaded guilty during trial and was sentenced to life imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently. The charges stemmed from the brutal murder of Akello Barbra, whom the appellant killed, dismembered, and buried in multiple locations on his grandmother’s property.
The appellant confessed to the crime during police investigations, leading to the recovery of the body parts and corroborating evidence. Medical examinations confirmed his sound mental state and age of 19 at the time of the crime.
Dissatisfied with the life sentences, the appellant appealed on the grounds that they were harsh and excessive. His counsel argued for a reduced sentence, citing mitigating factors such as the appellant's guilty plea and request for forgiveness. The appellant sought a sentence of 10 years.
The respondent, represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, opposed the appeal, raising procedural objections. These included the appellant's failure to file the notice of appeal within the stipulated 14 days under section 28(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, and his failure to seek leave to appeal against the sentence, as required by section 132 of the Trial on Indictments Act.
The appellate court noted significant lapses by the appellant’s counsel, who failed to address these procedural issues. As a result, the court declared the appeal incompetent and struck it out.
Ruling
Court held that the appellant, who pleaded guilty on 4th August 2014 and was sentenced on 7th August 2014, filed a notice of appeal on 31st December 2015, well beyond the prescribed time limit. Furthermore, the notice was not endorsed by the Registrar.
The Court noted significant lapses by the appellant’s counsel, who failed to scrutinize the record of appeal or address the points of law raised by the respondent regarding the timeliness and procedural propriety of the appeal. The appellant’s counsel also neglected to seek leave of the court, as required under Section 132(1)(b) of the Trial on Indictments Act (TIA), for appeals concerning sentences alone.
The Court criticized counsel’s lack of diligence, stating that the failure to adhere to these fundamental legal requirements rendered the appeal illegal and incompetent, leaving no choice but to strike it out. The court has held that,
Appeals against sentence are therefore different from appeals against conviction and sentence that are of right, as it was provided for in section 132 (1) (a) of the TIA. It is unfortunate that counsel for the appellant did not exercise vigilance in this appeai. He did not consider the fact that the state paid him to take care of the interests of the Appellant, a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. He literally 'slept on the job.' In view of the serious lapses in the process of bringing this appeal, we have no alternative but to declare that the appeal now before us was illegal and incompetent. It could not be entertained by this court and it is hereby struck out.
Implications
The Court's ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural requirements under Section 28(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). Filing a notice of appeal within the stipulated 14-day period is mandatory, and failure to comply renders the appeal incompetent and illegal.
If the statutory limits lapses an application for extension of time ought to be sought.
The Court criticized the appellant's counsel for failing to exercise due diligence in preparing and filing the appeal. This serves as a warning to legal practitioners that they are expected to uphold high standards of professionalism and to safeguard the rights of their clients by strictly following procedural requirements.
Counsel's failure in this case amounted to a denial of the appellant's constitutional right to effective legal representation.
The decision clarifies the limited scope of appeals against sentences under Section 132(1)(b) of the Trial on Indictments Act (TIA). Such appeals are not automatic but require leave from the Court of Appeal.
This reinforces the procedural distinction between appeals against convictions (which may be of right) and appeals solely against sentencing, where additional requirements apply.
Impact on the Appellant
The appellant was denied the opportunity to challenge the life sentence imposed upon him. This outcome may lead to perceptions of injustice, particularly as the appellant pleaded guilty and raised mitigating factors that were not reconsidered on appeal.
It also sets a precedent that procedural non-compliance can override considerations of fairness or proportionality in sentencing.
While the appellant's constitutional right to appeal was technically upheld, the decision to strike out the appeal demonstrates how procedural violations can indirectly impede the realization of substantive rights. This raises broader questions about balancing procedural compliance with access to justice.
In conclusion, this ruling serves as a critical reminder of the need for procedural vigilance in criminal appeals while exposing the potential tension between procedural law and the principles of fairness and justice. It highlights the responsibilities of legal counsel and the judiciary in safeguarding both procedural integrity and constitutional rights.
Read full case
.jpg)
Comments