Skip to content
JudgmentBernard Wabwire VS The Republic2 min read

Bernard Wabwire VS The Republic

High Court at Voi High Court · · George. Dulu


  1. Before me is an application by way of Chamber Summons filed on 1st November 2023 under Section 347 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 50(2)(p) and (q) of the Constitution, in which the applicant herein seeks leniency and review of his current imprisonment sentence to the least severe of the prescribed punishment.
  2. The application was filed with a supporting affidavit sworn by the applicant Bernard Wabwire in which he deponed that he pleaded guilty before the trial court and was remorseful.
  3. The application was canvassed through written submission an din this regard, I have perused and considered the submissions filed by the applicant, as well as the submissions filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.  I note that the DPP has opposed the application.
  4. In the submissions, the applicant has emphasized that he pleaded guilty and was remorseful, and that he has children to care for, as the mother of the children had relocated.
  5. On their part, the Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the request for review of sentence as Section 278A of the Penal Code provides a sentence of 7 years for the offence, and the Magistrate took into account the fact that applicant was a repeat offender and the mitigating factors including his plea of guilty and sentenced him to only 4 years imprisonment.
  6. On my part, I find no merits in this request for revision of sentence in that I have not been shown any error apparent legal or factual that the trial Magistrate committed, for this court to invoke the provisions of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  7. In addition to the above, as the applicant had a right to appeal against sentence imposed, Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, removes powers of review from this court on initiation of the convict, who is the applicant herein.  Thus as the convict is the initiator of the request for revision in this present situation wherein he had a right of appeal against sentence, this court cannot be of assistance to him.  The request will thus be declined.
  8. Having stated as above, under the general prison decongestion of CSO revision of sentence exercise, this same court can consider review of sentence, subject to a sentence review report filed by the Probation Officer.
  9. As for the present application for review of sentence, it is unmerited.  I dismiss the application.

Dated, signed and delivered this ……… day of June 2024 in open court at Voi.

In the presence of:-

Alfred/Trizah – Court Assistants

    Bernard Wabwire VS The Republic Bernard Wabwire VS The Republic