RPA 00285/16/HC/KIG
Page |2
[05] The appellant seized the High Court alleging that he was charged with defilement,
but argues that the court ignored that he cohabited with Masengesho who was later
impregnated by a man named Claude who fled to Uganda, according to authorities.
[06] He agreed with the girl to cohabite, and later came to argue in the village. To the
question of whether he wants a sentence below 10 years, he replied that has no opinion,
adding that if possible he would love to have his sentence reduced.
[07] The prosecution argues that the defendant’s sentence cannot be reduced because the
law provides for a sentence of life imprisonment that cannot be reduced to less than ten
years.
[08] The Court finds that the appellant's intent was to convince the Court that to give him
a reduced sentence on the ground that he had cohabited with the girl without knowing
that she was underage.
[09] Article 110 of Law no 15/04 of 12/06/04 relating to evidence in court provides that
a confession made in court is evidence of the statement made by the confessing party,
but, it does not say that the confession made before the judicial police and the prosecution
is invalid.
[10] The Court finds that the appellant admitted to having defiled the child. The fact that
he claims to have had sexual intercourse with her without knowing it was an offence does
not absolve him of his guilt but he should be punished as held in the first instance.
[11] The Court also finds that Article 78 of the Penal Code mentioned above provides that
if there are mitigating circumstances, life imprisonment or life imprisonment with special
provisions is replaced by a penalty of imprisonment of not less than ten (10) years.
[12] The Court therefore finds that Habufite's sentence was reduced on the ground that
he had pleaded guilty, and the law does not permit to reduce it further as indicated in
the preceding paragraph.
[13] The appellant is therefore convicted of the offense under Article 191 of Organic Law
nº 01/12 of 3/05/12 establishing the Penal Code, and his sentence to 10 years’
imprisonment is unchanged.
III. DECISION OF THE COURT
[14] Holds that the appeal filed by Habufite Emmanuel is admissible but unfounded.
2|Page