Droma John and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0385 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 135 (9 May 2025)

Full Case Text

# THB REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THB COURT OF APPEAL SITTING AT ARUA

Coram: (Geoffrey Kiryabwire, Irene Mulyagonja, Eva K. Luswata, JJA)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 0385 OF 2015

(Arising from High Court criminal session No 0012 of 2014 Holden at Adjumani)

![](_page_0_Figure_5.jpeg)

(An appeal from the Judgement of the High Court of Uganda Hon. Justice Vincent T. Okwanga delivered on 20th September 2014)

### JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

#### Introduction

The Appellants were indicted and convicted of the offense of murder contrary to Sections 188 and 189 ofthe Penal Code Act, Cap 120.

#### Facts

The Appellants,, on the 5th day of August 2012, aI Pakwinya Village in Adjumanr District, along with others, abducted the deceased, Owole Thomas, from his home against his will. They tied him with a sisal rope, brutally assaulted him along the way, and ultimately killed and bumed his body. A post-mortem examination confirmed severe injuries, including fractures, brain trauma, and bums. The Appellants pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges.

### Decision of the trial court

The trial court found all the Appellants guilty, convicted them and sentenced Droma John to 46t12years, Anyama Sirnon 46rlz years, Ambayo Simon 48 years, William Alumai alias Lagu 48 years, Egama Thomas Vuga 48 years, Opio Godfrey Odoch 50 years, Anyama Godfrey Eriga 47 years, and Anyovi Simon 49 years.

Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed against conviction and sentence on the following grounds in the Amended Memorandum of Appeal: -

1. The learned trial Judge erred in law and in fact by holding that the Prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons/Appellants beyond any reasonable doubt, whereas not thus occasioning a substantial miscarriage of justice, to the Appellants.

- 2. That the learned trial Judge erred in law and fact to reject atl the alibi set up by the Appellants. - 3. The learned trial Judge erred in law and facts when he sentenced the Appellants to between 46 t/z years to 50 years' imprisonment which is manifestly harsh and excessive and failed to take into consideration, the guidelines for sentencing provided in law under, The Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013.

The Respondent opposed the Appeal.

### Legal Representation

At the hearing, the Appellant was represented by Counsel Madira Jimmy, and the Respondent by Counsel Nabaasa Carolyn Hope, a Senior Assistant DPP.

#### Powers of the Appellate Court

This is a first appeal and this court takes cognizance of the established principles regarding the role of a first appellate court. The cases of Kifamunte Henry V Uganda; Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997 and Bogere Moses And Another V. Uganda; Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. I of 1997 in essence have established that a first appellate court must review/rehear the evidence and consider all the materials which were before the trial Court, and come to its own conclusion regarding the facts, taking into account that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses; and in this regard, it should be guided by the observations of the trial court regarding demeanor of witnesses.

Rule 30 of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S. I. 13-I0 is also relevant. It provides that;

30. Power to reappraise evidence and to take additional evidence

(l) On ctny appeal from a decision of the High Court acting in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the court may-

(a) Reappraise the evidence and draw inferences offact; and

(b) In its discretion, for sfficient reason, take additional evidence or direct that additional evidence be taken by the trial court or by a commissioner.

We shall apply the above principles to this appeal.

## Ruling on a Preliminary Point of Law

Counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appeal is procedurally flawed. Counsel submitted that Appellant No. 3 Ambayo Simon, did not file a Notice of Appeal and was improperly included in the Memorandum of Appeal (MOA). Counsel also sought clarification on discrepancies in the names of Appellants No. 2 and No. 6 as listed in the MOA and the Record of Appeal (ROA). Additionally,, Counsel argued that the Notices of Appeal for the rernaining Appellants were filed three months late, in violation of Sections 28(l) and 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act (CPCA), rendering the appeals invalid.

Counsel for the Respondent also argued that Grounds 1 and 3 of the MOA contravene Rule 66(2), as Ground 1 is overly general, and Ground 3 is vague and based on non-existent facts. In this regard, Counsel relied on the decision of Mugerwa John V. Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 0375 OF 2020, where it was held that: -

"An Appellant cannot and should not throw grounds of appeal at court and expect court to wade through them looking for where the learned trial Judge went wrong. An Appellant has a duty under Rule 66 (2) of the Rules of this Court to setforth concisely the ground of objection to the decision appealed

against. The Appellant must in a first appeal, which this one is, specify the fact or mixed law and fact which he is alleging was wrongly decided'

Counsel for the Respondent further relied on the case of Sseremba Denis V. Uganda, Criminal Appeal NO. 480 of 2017 , where the court struck out grounds of appeal that merely alleged improper evaluation of evidence without being specific and held: -

"That the learned trial Judge erred in law andfact when hefailed to properly and adequately evaluate the evidence before him as a whole thereby aruiving at a wrong conclusion".

Counsel for the Respondent further relied on Ntirenganya Joseph V. Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2017 , And Muhereza Bosco & Another V. Uganda, Criminal Appeal No.066 OF 2011, to suppoft their argument that vague and generalized grounds should be struck out.

In light of this, the Respondent invites us to apply the same principle and strike out Grounds Nos 1 and 4 of the instant appeal.

In reply, Counsel for the Appellant sought leave under Rule 5 of the Rules of this Court for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal for ,A3 which he asserted was missing and thereafter, to validate the appeal. He prayed that, as to the late filing of the Notice of Appeal out of time he prayed to extend time to file the NOA for those, and file for A1, A2, A4, A5, A6, A7 and A8 be validated. As to grounds 1 and 3, he prayed that these objections be overruled and considered the Grounds as framed.

Counsel for the Respondent subsequently withdrew her objections to validation and extension of time to file NOA. However, Counsel for the Respondent maintained the argurnents that Grounds 1 and 3 ofAppeal as filed should be struck out.

We have considered the objections ofcounsel for the Respondent and the authorities supplied to us in support of the objection. We have also considered the reply to the objections and the authorities supplied by counsel for the Appellant.

We now Rule as follows: -

- 1. Court extended the time to file NOA for . A3 to the end of business the same day being the 20th November 2023 after which the MOA would be validated. - 2. Court extended the time within which to file the NOA and MOA in respect of A1, 42, A4, 1^5, 4.6 and A8 now on court record. The NOA and MOA now stand accordingly validated. - 3. As to the objections as to Grounds 1 and 3, our Ruling shall be contained in ourjudgment.

### We so Order.

Ground l: The learned trial Judge erred in law and in fact by holding that the Prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons/Appellants beyond any reasonable doubt, whereas not thus occasioning a substantial miscarriage of justice, to the Appellants.

#### Submissions of Appellants

Counsel for the Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the accused's' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the fourlh element of murder: that the accused caused the death of the deceased. Drawing on the established principle from Woolmington V. DPP (1935) AC 469,

4+k

counsel submitted that this burden remains firmly with the prosecution throughout the trial, except in specific, inapplicable circumstances.

While counsel for the Appellant agreed with the trial Judge's findings on the first three ingredients of murder (death of the deceased, unlawful causation, and malice aforethought),, he submitted that the participation of the Appellants had not been proved.

Counsel for the Appellant argued that while the witnesses at the trial testified that they had seen a mob beating the deceased, the same witnesses were not present at the time of death. Counsel argued that while the post-mortem report, detailed the cause ofdeath as brain injury from blunt and sharp objects, there was evidentially no direct link between those injuries and the accused. Counsel further challenged the credibility of the witnesses' identification of the accused persons, pointing out that the identification was carried out in couft, and was not part of their initial police statements. Counsel also argued there was no discemible motive in respect of the murder, casting significant doubt on the prosecution's claims.

Counsel for the Appellant further argued that the trial Judge erred in several crucial aspects of his assessment of the evidence. In this regard, counsel referred to a key inconsistency in the prosecution's narative, namely the testimony of the wife of the deceased Regina Asiengo PW5 who testified that the accused persons picked up the deceased, which evidence was directly contradicted by evidence supporting Droma John's A1's alibi.

Counsel also submitted that whereas the trial Judge's emphasized on the accused's absence at the deceased's burial, this finding was contradicted given that some ofthe accused were in police custody at the time, rendering their absence at the burial irrelevant.

Counsel fufther argued that the trial Judge failed to consider the cultural context of the events, specifically the importance of grudges within the community, which

could have provided a more nuanced understanding of the circumstances surrounding the crime. This omission, counsel for the Appellant argued, led to a distorted interpretation of the accused's actions.

Finally, counsel for the Appellant strongly contested the trial Judge's reliance on the doctrine of common intention. Counsel argued that crirninal responsibility is individual, and that the prosecution had presented no evidence to suggest a coordinated plan or shared intention among the accused. Counsel submitted that the events in question were as the result of mob action and not a pre-meditated actions by the accused persons.

### Submissions by Counsel for the Respondent

Counsel for the Respondent argued that the appeal's core issue was whether the Appellants' parlicipated in and were identified as the perpetuators of the offense. In this regard counsel agreed with the findings ofthe trial Judge.

Counsel submitted that motive is not a legal requirement for conviction but that the evidence suggested a clear motive being that the deceased was suspected of killing Nyandru Michael who was to be buried that same day. Counsel argued that this motive was more plausible than that of the existence of a land dispute.

Counsel further argued that the trial Judge correctly found that the Appellants did not attend the deceased's funeral even though it is true that some ofthem were still in police custody at the time. Counsel submitted that there was a strong cultural expectation to attend a neighbor's burial, arguing that absence implies a serious conflict. Counsel for The Respondent disrnissed the Appellants' arguments conceming cultural grudges, noting they were not raised in the MOA.

Counsel for the Respondent further argued that the trial Judge correctly applied the law regarding common intention. Counsel submitted that in this regard, the trial Judge relied on the detailed testimonies of multiple eyewitnesses who described each Appellant's specific role in the crime. Counsel submitted that the evidence of the eyewitness accounts was credible, placing the Appellants at the scene of the crime. The evidence also described the Appellant's specific actions, including binding the deceased, pulling a rope, jumping on his back, driving a stick into his head, and setting him on fire. This evidence was corroborated by the police Scene of Crime Officer, whose observations of the deceased's iniuries aligned with the eyewitness accounts, including the presence of a sisal rope and a stick, and the postmortem report, which further confirmed the extensive injuries.

Counsel for The Respondent argued that the above direct evidence contradicted the Appellants' claim that the post-mortem report exonerates them. Counsel argued that the consistent evidence from multiple witnesses clearly linked each Appellant to the crime, justifuing the trial Judge's finding of common intention and holding all Appellants accountable.

### Findings and decisions by the Court

We have addressed and perused the submissions of both Counsel and for that we are grateful.

Counsel for the Respondent had earlier raised a Preliminary Objection stating that Grounds 1 of the MOA contravene Rule 66(2), for being overly general. At the hearing of the arguments, we ruled that we would address this objection within the main decision.

It is our considered view that this ground does not offend Rule 66(2) ofthe Rules of this Court, but rather the Ground is badly drafted. The ground could have been better drafted, by providing more specific details which, as it is now can only be ascertained by reading the submissions of counsel for the Appellant. This

(,l-ld

notwithstanding, counsel for the Appellant raised legal arguments in his submissions relating to mob justice, alibi and the doctrine of common intention which, we think should be addressed. We therefore find that this Ground is curable, because it seeks to apply the burden of proof to the findings of the trial Judge on the above legal principles.

On a charge of Murder contrary to Section 188 and Section 189 of the PCA, the Prosecution is required to prove the following essential elements of the offence of Murder, namely:

- (i) The deceased is dead. - (ii) That the death of the deceased was unlawfully caused. - (iii) The death was caused with malice aforethought. - (iv) That the accused person(s) caused the death.

It is the case for the Appellants that the prosecution failed to prove their participation in the murder of the deceased. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that while it is true the witnesses saw a mob which was beating the deceased, none of the said witnesses were present at the time of the death of the deceased.

Each of the Appellants in their defence set up an alibi to the effect that they were not around when the deceased was killed. Some alibi was of a general nature like those of Anyama Simon Orozi (who was A21DW2); Opio Godfrey Laker Oduch (who was A6/DW6); Anyama Godfrey Eriga (who was A7/DW7); and Anyovi Simon (who was A8/DW8). Droma John (who was Al/DWl) testified that he was at the home of one Oloya preparing food for the funeral of Thomas Owole; Ambayo Simon (who was A3IDW3) testified that he was in South Sudan, and Alurnai William (who was A41DW4) testified that he was in Moyo.

The law on alibi in crirninal cases was properly articulated by the trial Judge when he held: -

+a " ...1n Bogere Moses snd Another -v- Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 00 I of 1994; (SC), it was stated that; quote; "accused has a duty of raising the defence but has no duQ ofproving it. Prosecution bears the duty ofdestroying the defence by putting the accused at the scene of crime at the time it was being committed... "

In applying the law to the facts of this case, the trail Judge went on further to hold:

"..., Ifind the respective defence of each of these three accused, DW6, DW7 and DW8 has been ffictively negativated by the evidence of identification by the four eye witnesses herein as above. I therefore reject each ofthemfor the above reasons. Although I find that each of the four eye witnesses herein, PW5, PI4/6, PW7 and PW8 each describes the respective role played by each accused person herein as witnessed by each of these witnesses, judging by their respective conduct and the fact that none of the eight accused demonstrated any intention or actions to disassociate themselves from the activities of the rest of the players in the group. They all share a common intention, it follows that each of the eight accused is equally liable for the murder of Thomas Owole, irrespective of the individual role played by each... ".

It is not in dispute as shown in the post-moftem report that the cause of death was brain injury from blunt and sharp objects. Clearly the deceased was the victim of significant assault. The prosecution through their witnesses were able to place the Appellants at the scene of the crime with the eyewitness PW5,6, 7 describing the respective role each accused played, thus destroying their alibi. We therefore are unable to fault the trial Judge in his finding of pafticipation in the murder by the Appellants.

u"<

As for rnotive, it now establisl.red law in Uganda that motive is not one of the ingredient needed to prove murder Charles Benon Bitwire V Uganda Criminal Appeal No 23 of 1985 and Dusabe Alias Musamabende V Uganda Dusabe alias Musamabende v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2016) 120221UGCA 59 (3 March 2022)

On the issue of common intention, the Respondent argued that the trial Judge correctly applied the law. They relied on the testimonies of PW5, PW6, PW7, and PWS, which detailed each accused person's role. They submitted that the trial Judge rightly found that all eight accused persons shared a common intention, as none disassociated themselves from the crime (Page 144, ROA). They cited Simbwa Paul V. Uganda, Criminal Application NO. 023 of 2012 while citing with approval; the case Kisegerwa & Another V. Uganda, Criminal Application No. 6 of 1978, their Lordships echoed that

"...an unlawful common intention does not imply a preananged plan. Common intention may be infeted from the presence of the accused persons, their actions and the omission of any of them to disassociate himselffrom the assault " .

In this appeal the Appellants were seen by Regina Asiengo PW5; Abio Mary PW6; Akon PW7 and Atoba William PW8 beating and causing the deceased to jump while walking to the funeral of Thomas Owole. The concerted actions of the Appellant clearly point to a common intention and therefore, we are unable to fault the trial Judge's finding in this regard.

Accordingly, Ground I fails.

Ground 2: That the learned trial Judge erred in law and fact to reject all the alibi set up by the Appellants.

1r-lL

This ground has substantially been resolved under Ground number one and consequently to avoid repetition, it also not upheld.

Ground 3: The learned trial Judge erred in law and facts when he sentenced the Appellants to between 46 /, years to 50 years' imprisonment which is manifestly harsh and excessive and failed to take into consideration, the guidelines for sentencing provided in Iaw under, The Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions,2013.

## Appellants submissions

Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the trial Judge's sentences were emotionally driven, thereby violating the 2013 Sentencing Guidelines by failing to consider mitigating factors like firsttime offender status, and imposing excessive sentences based on unsubstantiated claims.

Counsel criticized what he called the unexplained disparity in sentences among Appellants convicted under common intention, arguing this violated Article 21(1) of the Constitution and constituted illegal discrimination.

Counsel further submitted that the trial Judge disregarded Regulation 21(l) of the 2013 Sentencing Guidelines by irnposing harsher sentences on youthful offenders (aged 18-35), ranging from47 to 50 years, whereas they deserved leniency. They asserted these factors resulted in unjust and excessive sentences, requesting the appellate couft to review the case based on Aguipi Isaac v. Uganda Criminal Appeal CACA No. 281/2016 and similar precedents, declaring the sentences illegal and discriminatory.

### Respondents submissions

Counsel for the Respondent argued that the trial Judge properly exercised sentencing discretion, given the heinous and premeditated nature of the crime under Sections 188 and I 89 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum death penalty.

Counsel pointed that the deceased was subjected to immense suffering, torture, humiliation, and a painful death. Counsel therefore submitted that the crime warranted severe punishment.

Counsel for the Respondent further argued that the varying sentences were justified based on individual roles, citing the ringleader's (.46) 50-year sentence as appropriate given his planning and execution. Counsel also submitted that mitigating factors like age and extent of participation, and agewere considered.

As to varying sentences, counsel for the Respondent rejected this argument and submitted that the trial Judge took into account decided cases like Tomusange Lasto & Anorv. Uganda CA No.103 of 2015 where varying sentences for joint offenders were upheld.

### Findings ofthe Court

We have addressed ourselves to the submissions, and for that we are grateful

Counsel for the Respondent had earlier raised a Preliminary Objection stating that Ground 3 of the MOA contravened Rule 66(2), as it is vague and based on nonexistent facts. We during the hearing of the arguments in this matter ruled that we would address the objection within the main decision. We shall proceed to do that now

It is our view that Ground 3, is neither vague nor based on non-existent facts, for the reasons that follow.

<rA<

First, serious sentences were meted out by the trial Judge and we find it necessary reproduce the sentencing ruling in this regard. In sentencing, the trial Judge held: -

## "... Sentence and reasons for the same.

*The 8 accused are convicted of a very serious offence of murder. It is a felony* punishable by death as the maximum under Section 189 of the Penal Code Act. This type of offence is seriously on the rise in this part of the country. Cases of people taking the law into their hands to solve family disputes can't be tolerated by this Court. In respect of, A1 Droma Simon, he has spent on *remand 2 years* $+$ *,*

A2 has spent on remand 2 years $+$

A3 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $A4$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$ $A5$ """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" $A6$ """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" $A7$ $A8$ """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

The manner in which this offence was committed in public in front of the *family members, calls for impunity (sic) calls for a deterrence sentence.* Murder is an offence that takes away the precious life of an individual. No one has a right over the life of another person. Taking into account the respective periods spent on remand by each of the accused persons herein which period I have hereby deducted hereof on. I do sentence the 8 accused *convicts as follows:*

Al being an elder andfit to be a community leader in the village. You demonstrated the worst example to the youths, you led them to the home of Owole Thomas. Taking into

account the 2 years and one month spent on remand by Al, Droma John, I sentence you to 46 years' imprisonment. A2 being an elder in the community I also sentence you to

46 years ' imprisonment.

A3 Ambayo Simon, taking into account the I year I I months which period I have hereby deducted hereof is sentenced to 48 years' imprisonment. A4 William Cudi Lagu Alumai, having spent I year and I I months on remand, I do sentence you to 48 years' imprisonment after I have deducted the I year and I I months spent on remand.

A5 Egama Thomas Vuga has spent I year i months which I have taken into account and deducted there from is sentenced to 48 years' imprisonment.

A6, Opio Godfrey Odoch has spent I year and 4 months is sentenced to 50 years' imprisonment after I have deducted the I year and 4 months therefrom.

A7 Anyama Godfrey Eriga having spent I year 4 months on remand is sentences to 47 years' imprisonment after I have deducted the I year 4 months therefrom. And, A8 Anyovi Simon having spent I year in prison on remand is sentenced to 49 years' imprisonment that period spent on remand having been deducted here from ... "

lrronr thc. abovc scnte rlcing" it is clcar that thc nrLrrclcr rr as carrie rl out bl a nroh. Wc slrall nou acldr'.'ss oLrrselvcs to prcccclurts involvins nrt.rh.jrrslicc.

In Turyahabwe Ezra and Others V Uganda, SC Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2015 the Appellants in that matter murdered the victim in what was a mob justice

'{r-l<

altercation and were sentenced life imprisonrnent. On further appeal to the Supreme Courl this sentence was upheld as not being illegal or rnanifestly excessive.

In a more recent matter of Karimunda Edward and 5 others Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2019 and 57 of 2019 (delivered on, 20'h March 2025), this Court reviewed various sentencing decisions of the Supreme Couft where murder arose from mob justice.

In one such case reviewed, K:rm1'a Abdullah and .l Ors v Uganda SC Criminal Appeal No 2,1 of 2015, l20l8l UGCS (26 April 2018), thc Appellant rvas convictecl ol mr:rclcr by the tligh Court and senlenced to 40 years' imprisonrrent. On appeal to thc ('ourt o1' Appeal tlre sc'ntence rvas lcduccd to 30 years' inrprisonrrent. I'lowever, orr lurtl-rer appeal, the Sr.rpreure Court redr.rced the se'ntence to l8 years on account of the nrurder alising fitnt " mrth .juslit'a" .

Whereas we find that the reasoning of the trial Judge when sentencing to be corect, we find his sentences being between 46 to 50 years to be out of range with more recent decisions reviewed above. In sentencing, the sentencing Judge is required to taking into account the need for 'parity and consistency of sentence'. We therefore agree with that the trial Judge did not properly excise his discretion and so we set them aside as harsh and excessive.

We now exercise our powers under Section I I of the Judicature Act Cap 13, and resentence the Appellants taking into mitigating and aggravating factors, and parity and consistency in sentencing.

We shall resentence as follows: -

We now resentence the first Appellant Droma John to a term of imprisonment of 26 yea-rs. Further taking into account the period spent on remand of 2 years and 1 month. The Appellant shall serve a period of 23 years and 11 months; starting from the date of conviction in the tria,l Court.

t7 I

f\*J<

We resentence the second Appellant Anyama Simon to a term of imprisonment of 26 years. Further taking into account the period spent on remand of 2 years. The Second Appellant shall serve a period of 24 years; starting from the date of conviction in the tria-l Court.

We resentence the third Appellant Ambayo Simon to a term of imprisonment of 28 years. Further taking into account the period spent on remand of 1 year and 11months, the third Appellant shall serve a period of 26 years and 1 month; starting from the date of conviction in the trial Court.

We resentence the fourth Appellant William Cudi Alumai to a term of imprisonment of 28 years. Further taking into account the period spent on remand of 1 year and 11 months; the fourth Appellant shall serve a period of 26 years andl month; starting from the date of conviction in the trial Court.

We resentence the fifth Appellant Egama Thomas Vuga to a term of imprisonment of 28 yea-rs. Further taking into account the period spent on remand of 1 years and 3 months the Appellant shall serve a period of 26 years and 9 months; starting from the date of conviction in the tria-l Court.

We resentence the sixth Appellant Opio Godfrey Odoch to a term of imprisonment of 30 yea-rs. Further taking into account the period spent on remand of 1 year and 4 months the Appellant shall serve a period of 28 years and 8 months; starting from the date of conviction in the trial Court.

We resentence the seventh Appellant Anyama Godfrey Eriga to a term of imprisonment of 27 years. Further taking into account the period spent on remand of 1 year and 4 months the Appellant sha-ll serve a

4,t-K

period of 25 years and 8 months; starting from the date of conviction in the trial Court.

We resentence the eighth Appellant Anyovi Simon to a term of imprisonmenl of 29 years. Further taking into account the period spent on remand of 1 year the Appellant shall serve a period of 28 years; starting from the date of conviction in the trial Court.

As a result, the Ground 3 succeeds.

# Final Decision

Having held as u,e have on the above issues, Decide and Order that:

- 1. The Appeal is partially allowed. - 2. All the sentences of High Court are set aside. - 3. Droma John, is resentenced to 23 years' and I 1 months' imprisonment from the date of conviction at the trial Court,2Oth September 2015. - 4. Anyama Simon is resentenced to 24 years' imprisonment from the date of conviction at the trial Court, 20tt'September 2015. - 5. Ambayo Simon, is resentenced to 26 years' and l-month imprisonment from the date of conviction at the trial Court,2Oth September 2O 15. - 6. Igama Thomas, is resentenced to 26 years' and 9-months imprisonment lrom the date of conviction at the trial Court, 2Oth September 20 15. - 7. William Alumai, is resentenced to 26 years' and l-month imprisonment from the date of conviction at the trial Court.

,\*lL

- 8. Opio Godfrey is resentenced to 28 years' and 8 months' imprisonment from the date of conviction at the tria-l Court, 2Oth September 2015. - 9. Anyama Godfrey is resentenced to 25 years and 8 months in imprisonment from the date of conviction at the trial Court.

lO. Anyovi Simon is resentenced to 28 years in imprisonment from the date of conviction at the tria-l Court.

### WE SO ORDER

Dated at {ctm day of 2025. a Hon. Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire Hon. Lady Justice Irene M nja, JA Hon. Lady Justice Eva K. Luswata, JA r pAI9...rri" /