The Court of Appeal has upheld a 30-year prison sentence imposed on Francis Ocaya for the murder of Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) soldier Godfrey Birungi, whom he killed after finding him with a woman they had both been involved with.
In a judgment delivered on October 26, 2026, the court dismissed Ocaya’s appeal, ruling that the sentence imposed by the High Court was neither manifestly harsh nor excessive to warrant appellate intervention.
Justices Eva Luswata, Asa Mugenyi and Musa Ssekaana heard the appeal, in which Ocaya challenged the 30-year sentence handed down by the High Court in Gulu on December 12, 2015, after he pleaded guilty to murder.
According to court records, the murder occurred on October 14, 2010, at Keyo Village in Lamogi Sub-county, Amuru District.
Birungi, a serving UPDF soldier, had been living with a woman identified as Josephine Aceng before being deployed for service outside the country.
During his absence, Aceng began cohabiting with Ocaya, but the relationship later ended.
When Birungi returned to Aceng’s home on October 12, 2010, Ocaya reportedly became angry about their reunion.
In the early hours of October 14, at about 3 a.m., Ocaya and another man, who remains at large, allegedly broke into the house where Birungi and Aceng were sleeping.
The two men reportedly assaulted Aceng, took some of her property and dragged Birungi away.
Aceng reported the incident to the local council chairperson, who alerted police. A subsequent search led to the discovery of Birungi’s body, which had been abandoned by the roadside.
A postmortem examination established that Birungi died from asphyxia caused by strangulation and hypovolaemia resulting from blood loss.
Ocaya fled the village following the incident but was arrested in Gulu Town in April 2011 and charged with murder.
In his appeal, Ocaya argued that the trial judge had placed excessive emphasis on aggravating circumstances while failing to give sufficient consideration to mitigating factors that could have justified a lighter sentence.
His lawyer cited previous murder cases in which the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court had reduced sentences, arguing that Ocaya deserved similar consideration.
The defence asked the court to reduce his sentence to 18 years’ imprisonment.
It also argued that the trial judge had relied on circumstances that were not properly established as aggravating factors and had failed to ensure consistency with sentences imposed in comparable cases.
The prosecution opposed the appeal, maintaining that the 30-year sentence was neither harsh nor excessive. It argued that the applicable sentencing guidelines provided for a starting point of 35 years’ imprisonment for murder.
Court finds no grounds to interfere
In its analysis, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the trial judge had not expressly repeated every mitigating factor raised by the defence. However, the justices held that this omission did not automatically render the sentence excessive, noting that the trial judge had generally considered the mitigating circumstances.
The High Court judge had observed that Ocaya appeared to have loved Aceng deeply and had acted after becoming distressed upon finding her with another man. The judge treated this as an element of provocation and considered it a mitigating factor warranting leniency.
The appellate court emphasised that sentencing falls within the trial court’s judicial discretion and that an appellate court should interfere only where a sentence is manifestly excessive or too lenient, falls outside the permissible range, or results from an error of principle.
The justices said they were not persuaded that Ocaya’s sentence met the threshold for appellate intervention.
They further noted that murder is a serious offence punishable by death and that the trial judge had already exercised leniency by imposing a prison term rather than the maximum penalty.
The Court of Appeal consequently dismissed the appeal and upheld Ocaya’s 30-year prison sentence.
According to the sentencing assessment outlined in the case, the term reflected a reduction from the 35-year starting point after accounting for time spent on pre-trial remand.
