Uganda Case Law

Waatunga v Finca Uganda Limited

Waatunga v Finca Uganda Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 314 (21 May 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2024

Judge

Karoli Lwanga Ssemogerere, J

The application to set aside the arbitral award fails because none of the grounds advanced by the applicant meet the statutory requirements under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The allegation of arbitrator bias was unsupported by evidence and did not meet the objective test for impartiality. The claim that the award was against public policy was not substantiated by reference to any specific statutory provision or public policy principle. The delay in delivering the award was permissible under Section 31(1) of the Act, as the arbitrator had discretion to enlarge time, and…

Source excerpt

• Setting Aside Arbitral Award
• Arbitrator Impartiality
• Public Policy In Arbitration
• Contractual Interest Rates
• Arbitration Timeliness

Byamugisha v Uganda

Byamugisha v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 186 of 2016) [2025] UGCA 150 (20 May 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 186 of 2016

Judge

Kazibwe, JA, Nakachwa, JA/JCC, Kakooza Sabiiti, JA/ JCC

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly followed the procedure for plea bargains as set out in the Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules, 2016. The plea bargain agreement was clear, and the judge's findings confirmed that the appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his rights and entered the agreement. The court found no illegality or irregularity in the process. However, the appellate court identified a minor error in the calculation of the sentence, specifically the deduction for time spent on remand, and corrected it to reflect the accurate period. The appeal w…

Source excerpt

• Plea Bargain Procedure
• Remand Period Deduction
• Conviction On Plea
• Rights Of Accused
• Sentence Appeal

Katamba v Uganda

Katamba v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 190 of 2016) [2025] UGCA 154 (20 May 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 190 of 2016

Judge

Kazibwe, JA, Nakachwa, JA/JCC, Kakooza Sabiiti, JA/ JCC

The Court of Appeal found that although the trial Judge did not personally explain the rights waived under the plea bargain agreement, the record showed that the appellant's Advocate had explained the rights, facts, and consequences to the appellant, who voluntarily accepted and admitted to the facts. The appellant did not claim to have suffered any injustice from the omission, and the plea was unequivocal. The court held that any procedural error did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, as required for reversal under section 138 of the Trial on Indictments Act. The requirements of Rule 12…

Source excerpt

• Plea Bargain Procedure
• Aggravated Defilement
• Miscarriage Of Justice
• Fair Hearing Rights

Tumwine v Uganda

Tumwine v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 185 of 2016) [2025] UGCA 158 (20 May 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 185 of 2016

Judge

Kazibwe, JA, Nakachwa, JA/JCC, Kakooza Sabiiti, JA/ JCC

The Court of Appeal found that although the trial judge did not strictly adhere to Rule 12 of the Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules by failing to explicitly explain the rights being waived and the effect of the plea bargain agreement, the record showed that the appellant was represented by counsel, acknowledged understanding of the proceedings, and confirmed acceptance of the plea bargain and sentence. The appellant did not raise any objection regarding translation or lack of understanding during the trial, and interpreters were available. The Court distinguished the present case from Wesamba A…

Source excerpt

• Plea Bargain Procedure
• Aggravated Defilement
• Fair Trial Rights
• Translation And Interpretation
• Miscarriage Of Justice

Kassimu v Uganda

Kassimu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 561 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 156 (20 May 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 561 of 2015

Judge

Kazibwe, JA, Nakachwa, JA/JCC, Kakooza Sabiiti, JA/ JCC

The Court of Appeal set aside a cumulative sentence order that referred to a court-martial sentence and re-sentenced the appellant to 17 years from 30 July 2014.

• Sentencing Principles
• Aggravated Robbery
• Cumulative Sentences
• Court Martial Sentences
• Sentencing-principles
• Aggravated-robbery

Ainomugisha v Uganda

Ainomugisha v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 188 of 2016) [2025] UGCA 147 (20 May 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 188 of 2016

Judge

Kazibwe, JA, Nakachwa, JA/JCC, Kakooza Sabiiti, JA/ JCC

Court of Appeal of Uganda judgment in Ainomugisha v Uganda, Criminal Appeal 188 of 2016, decided on 20 May 2025.

• Criminal-appeal
• Court-of-appeal
• Uganda

Kabaaho v Uganda

Kabaaho v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 503 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 143 (20 May 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 503 of 2015

Judge

Kazibwe, JA, Nakachwa, JA/JCC, Kakooza Sabiiti, JA/ JCC

The Court of Appeal varied a murder sentence, holding the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors, and resentenced the appellant to 30 years less remand.

• Murder Sentencing
• Sentencing Guidelines
• Mitigating Factors
• Aggravating Factors
• Murder-sentencing
• Sentencing-guidelines

State Wide Insurance Company Limited v Kisozi Complex (U) Limited and Others (MISC.APP NO.016 OF 2025)

State Wide Insurance Company Limited v Kisozi Complex (U) Limited and Others (MISC.APP NO.016 OF 2025) [2025] UGHC 311 (20 May 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

MISC.APP NO.016 OF 2025

Judge

Alividza, J

The court found that the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with triable issues in the main suit regarding ownership and alleged fraudulent transfer of the suit property. The applicant showed a likelihood of suffering irreparable harm if the caveats were removed, as this would allow the respondents to dispose of the land before the main suit is determined, and damages would not be an adequate remedy. The balance of convenience favored the applicant, as maintaining the status quo would not cause injustice to the respondents. The court emphasized that the purpose of a temporary injunctio…

Source excerpt

• Temporary Injunctions
• Caveats On Land
• Fraudulent Transfer Of Title
• Irreparable Injury
• Balance Of Convenience

Legal and Human Rights Center and Liberatus Mwang'ombe v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 041/2020)

Legal and Human Rights Center and Liberatus Mwang'ombe v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 041/2020) [2025] AfCHPR 17 (20 May 2025)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 041/2020

Judge

Adjei J, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Gaswaga J, Mengue J, Ntsebeza J, Sacko VP, Tchikaya J

The African Court reopened pleadings in a case challenging Tanzania’s voting restrictions on prisoners and diaspora citizens, and gave the State 7 days to respond.

• Right To Vote
• Political Participation
• Prisoners Rights
• Diaspora Voting
• Election Law
• Access To Justice

Twesigye v Uganda

Twesigye v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 178 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 148 (20 May 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 178 of 2015

Judge

Kazibwe, JA, Nakachwa, JA/JCC, Kakooza Sabiiti, JA/ JCC

The Court found that the sentence of 32 ½ years imprisonment for murder was within the established sentencing range and consistent with both mitigating and aggravating factors. The trial judge considered the appellant's guilty plea and time spent on remand, as required by the law at the time, which did not mandate an arithmetic deduction of remand period. The Court held that the sentence was neither harsh nor excessive and that the trial judge did not err in principle or overlook material factors. The subsequent requirement for arithmetic deduction of remand period established in Rwabugande M…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Guidelines
• Remand Period Deduction
• Murder Conviction
• Appeal On Sentence