Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Source-linked decisions currently available to browse
Wamimbi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 184 of 2012) [2025] UGCA 78 (12 March 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a 24-year sentence for aggravated defilement, finding the remand period was properly deducted and the sentence not excessive.
Magayi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 469 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 76 (12 March 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a 30-year murder sentence, finding the trial court had considered remand time and that the term was not manifestly excessive.
Shikanga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 153 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 71 (12 March 2025)
The Court of Appeal corrected an ambiguous sentence that failed to clearly account for remand time, re-sentencing the appellant after deducting 3 years and 10 months.
Mona International Cargo & Management Company Limited & 4 Others v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2982 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 24 (12 March 2025)
The court found that service of the amended summons and plaint was effective because the process server delivered them to the 4th Applicant, a director and authorized agent of the 1st Applicant company, who then instructed the process server to serve the documents onto the Applicants' advocates. The misnomer in the name of the 1st Applicant was deemed a minor technicality that was promptly corrected and did not affect the substance of the claim or the identity of the parties. The Applicants' argument that their legal counsel lacked instructions was rejected, as the time to apply for leave to…
Source excerpt
Export Trading Company Limited v OBN Produce & Supply Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1871 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 34 (12 March 2025)
The court struck out the respondent’s defence as late and evasive, entered default judgment for the applicant, and ordered the suit to proceed to formal proof.
DFCU Bank (U) Limited v Takumara & 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 525 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 26 (12 March 2025)
The court found that both suits, though involving distinct properties and claimants, arose from similar transactions—loan facilities advanced to the fifth respondent and mortgages created on the disputed properties. The core questions for determination in both suits relate to the rights and interests of the parties in the disputed properties, stemming from the same loan agreements and mortgage arrangements. The court determined that consolidating the suits would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting decisions, and would serve judicial efficiency. There was no evidence of prejudice to…
Source excerpt
Chopin Joseph Micheal v Fairway Hotel Limited (Civil Revision No. 13 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 84 (12 March 2025)
The court found that the Chief Magistrate acted within jurisdiction and in accordance with the law when requiring the applicant to deposit UGX 15,000,000 and his passport as security for appearance. The applicant was present in court, represented by counsel, and given an opportunity to be heard before the orders were made. The court determined that there was no illegality, material irregularity, or injustice in the proceedings or orders of the Chief Magistrate. The application for revision was therefore dismissed as lacking merit, and the orders of the lower court were upheld. The court empha…
Source excerpt
Wabuna v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 181 of 2012) [2025] UGCA 73 (11 March 2025)
__CONTENT_FILTERED__
Source excerpt
Nangai v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 179 of 2012) [2025] UGCA 72 (11 March 2025)
The Court of Appeal found the 40-year sentence illegal for failing to account for remand time, then resentenced the appellant and deducted 2 years and 2 months.
Nalukoba v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 150 of 2012) [2025] UGCA 70 (11 March 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that, although the trial judge did not arithmetically deduct the remand period from the sentence, he expressly stated that he considered the time spent on remand in his sentencing notes. At the time of sentencing, there was no strict requirement for courts to deduct remand time arithmetically, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Rwabugande v Uganda [2017] UGSC 8. The appellate court held that the sentence was neither illegal nor ambiguous, as the trial judge complied with the constitutional obligation under Article 23(8) by considering the remand period. The appeal…
Source excerpt
