Opolot & Anor v Uganda [2019] UGSC 4 (24 January 2019)

Case summary

The court held that the appellate court had properly evaluated the evidence and concluded that the appellant had been properly identified at the scene of the crime and that there had been proper factors for effective identification. That if a judicial decision intereprets the law, then it does no more than declare what the law has always been and that the courts declaration of what the law is must have a retrospective effect. That when the court exercises their discretion to sentence a convict for life, that cannot be the life sentence prescribed in the penal code Act, or in the prisons Act for purposes of remission. That they actually mean sentencing for the rest of their natural life. That the judicature Act precludes the supreme court from hearing matters relating to the severity of the sentence. That given that the maximum sentence for manslaughter wasn’t given, it couldn’t be said to be harsh and excessive. That the death penalty and sentence for life don’t qualify for remission of the time spent on remand.

---