Munyangongo v Uganda (Crim. Appeal No. 135 of 2009) [2011] UGCA 11 (1 March 2011)

Flynote

Criminal law|Evidence Law|Witness Testimony

Case summary

The court held that it is a judicial discretion to allow amendment had to be exercised without causing prejudice to the appellant.. The court held that the sentencing powers are discretionary in nature and an appellate court could only interfere where the trial judge acted on a wrong principle or overlooked facts. The court having been satisfied that the passing of the sentence, the law was not considered, the court found it possible to interfere with the sentence.

---