Uganda Case Law

Uganda v Namubiru & 5 Others

Uganda v Namubiru & 5 Others (Criminal Session 168 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 65 (22 January 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Session 168 of 2024

Judge

Karemani Jamson K, J

The court found that Byakatonda Tito died as a result of unlawful acts, specifically strangulation leading to asphyxia and a broken neck, as established by medical and witness evidence. Malice aforethought was inferred from the nature of the injuries and the targeting of a sensitive body part. Although direct evidence was lacking, circumstantial evidence and admissions established that Namubiru Hope (A1), Kalema Emmanuel (A2), and Nakalema Christine (A3) acted with common intention to cause the death of the deceased. Their conduct before and after the crime, including failure to report the di…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Malice Aforethought
• Common Intention
• Accessory After The Fact
• Burden Of Proof
• Circumstantial Evidence

Keuber v Uganda

Keuber v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 313 of 2017) [2024] UGCA 188 (19 July 2024)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 313 of 2017

Judge

Kiryabwire, JA, Mulyagonja, JA, Luswata, JA

The Court of Appeal quashed Keuber Ronald’s murder conviction, substituted a conviction for accessory after the fact, reduced the sentence, and ordered his release.

• Murder
• Accessory After The Fact
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Sentencing
• Mistaken Identity
• Criminal-appeal

Bakamuyunga alias Banana v Uganda

Bakamuyunga alias Banana v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2016) [2022] UGCA 37 (21 February 2022)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2016

Judge

Kakuru, JA, Mulyagonja, JA, Muzamiru, JA

The Court of Appeal quashed a murder conviction, substituting accessory after the fact to murder and ordering the appellant's release after time served.

• Murder
• Accessory After The Fact
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Trial Procedure
• Sentencing
• Remand Period

Uganda V Ssebuwufu Mohammed & 7 Others

Uganda V Ssebuwufu Mohammed & 7 Others (Criminal Session Case No. 0493 of 2015) [2019] UGHC 1 (24 June 2019)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Session Case No. 0493 of 2015

Judge

Anglin, J

The High Court convicted seven accused of murder, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping with intent to murder, finding common intention and rejecting their defences.

• Murder
• Aggravated Robbery
• Kidnap With Intent To Murder
• Common Intention
• Accessory After The Fact
• Burden Of Proof

Lutu v Uganda

Lutu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2015) [2016] UGHCCRD 89 (27 June 2016)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2015

Judge

Murangira, J

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence and relied on unchallenged testimony.

• Reckless Driving
• Causing Death By Dangerous Driving
• Evidence Evaluation
• Hearsay Evidence
• Cross Examination
• Accessory After The Fact

Uganda Vs Agade & Ors

Uganda Vs Agade & Ors (Criminal Session Case No. 0001 of 2010) [2016] UGHCICD 2 (27 May 2016)

Court

HC: International Crimes Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Session Case No. 0001 of 2010

Judge

Owiny-Dollo, J

The court determined that the offences of terrorism, murder, and attempted murder, committed with premeditation and extreme brutality, warrant severe punishment to reflect societal condemnation and deter future crimes. However, the death penalty was deemed insufficient to provide closure or assuage the pain suffered by victims and society. Life imprisonment was imposed for the principal offenders, with lengthy concurrent sentences for others, balancing the gravity of the crimes with considerations of individual participation and potential for reform. For the accessory after the fact, the cour…

Source excerpt

• Terrorism
• Murder
• Attempted Murder
• Sentencing Principles
• Accessory After The Fact

Mugerwa & Anor Vs Uganda

Mugerwa & Anor Vs Uganda (Criminal Application No. 114 of 2015) [2015] UGCA 49 (17 June 2015)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Application No. 114 of 2015

Judge

Kasule, JA

Court of Appeal of Uganda dismissed a bail pending appeal application, finding the applicants had not shown exceptional circumstances or diligence in prosecuting the appeal.

• Bail Pending Appeal
• Accessory After The Fact
• Conviction And Sentence
• Appeal Procedure
• Bail-pending-appeal
• Criminal-appeal-procedure

Lt Serwanga Juuko & Anor v Uganda

Lt Serwanga Juuko & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2004) [2009] UGCA 18 (20 April 2009)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2004

The Court of Appeal of Uganda dismissed a second criminal appeal, upholding convictions for being accessories after the fact and a six-month sentence.

• Accessory After The Fact
• Proof Of Ingredients
• Evaluation Of Evidence
• Abuse Of Office
• Escape From Punishment
• Criminal-law

Uganda v Serwadda and Another

Uganda v Serwadda and Another (Criminal Session Case 401 of 1999) [1999] UGHCCRD 1 (28 June 1999)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Session Case 401 of 1999

Judge

Bossa, J

The High Court convicted Muhamed Serwadda of murdering his father and Edisa Kitegesi as an accessory after the fact, sentencing him to death and her to two years.

• Murder
• Accessory After The Fact
• Burden Of Proof
• Malice Aforethought
• Accessory-after-the-fact
• Malice-aforethought

Wamai and Others v Reginam

Wamai and Others v Reginam (Criminal Appeals No. 1051 and 1052 of 1954) [1955] EACA 330 (1 January 1955)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeals No. 1051 and 1052 of 1954

Judge

Nihill P, Sir Enoch Jenkins, JA, Worley VP

The Court held that a person acquitted of murder cannot lawfully be convicted as an accessory after the fact to that murder unless specifically charged with that offence, as accessory after the fact is not minor and cognate to murder. This principle, affirmed in Velezi Kashizha v. R., applies equally under the Criminal Procedure Codes of Uganda, Kenya, and Tanganyika. The Court further held that delivery of judgment is an integral part of the trial, and the discretion to exclude the public under section 77 of the Criminal Procedure Code extends to judgment delivery, but must be exercised only…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Accessory After The Fact
• Open Court Principle
• Judgment Delivery
• Judicial Discretion
• Trial Procedure