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
Decisions matching the current search
Okurut v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 466 of 2020) [2024] UGCA 237 (30 August 2024)
The Court of Appeal upheld Okurut Micheal’s conviction for aggravated defilement but set aside the original sentence as ambiguous and re-sentenced him to 23 years.
Gule v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 34 of 2019) [2024] UGSC 34 (13 June 2024)
The Supreme Court of Uganda dismissed a second criminal appeal, upholding a murder conviction based on a voluntary confession, corroborating circumstantial evidence, and rejection of an alibi.
Barasa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 95 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 112 (14 June 2021)
High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against a theft conviction, holding that the evidence of conversion, confession, and witness testimony was sufficient.
Barasa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 95 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 79 (14 June 2021)
The High Court dismissed Barasa Hassan’s criminal appeal, upholding his conviction for theft after finding the evidence, confession statement, and sentence were proper.
Adiga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 2010) [2021] UGCA 2 (25 February 2021)
The Court found that the trial Judge's failure to sum up the law and evidence to the assessors constituted a fundamental procedural irregularity, rendering the trial a nullity and occasioning a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the admission of a disputed charge and caution statement without conducting a trial within a trial further compounded the irregularity. These errors undermined the fairness of the proceedings and the reliability of the conviction. While a retrial is ordinarily ordered in such circumstances, the Court considered the significant lapse of time since the offence (over…
Source excerpt
Cwinyaai Gilbert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2010) [2020] UGCA 2044 (10 February 2020)
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the charge and caution statement without a trial within a trial, as there was no objection or retraction by the defence. The statement was properly admitted and considered in its entirety, including the appellant's claims of self-defence and provocation. However, the evidence, including the post-mortem report and witness testimony, established that the deceased was unarmed and shot in the head by the appellant, a trained security guard, using disproportionate force. The court found that the defences of self-defence and pro…
Source excerpt
Twaha Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2014) [2019] UGCA 238 (8 August 2019)
The Court found that the trial Judge properly admitted the appellant's confession statement after a trial within a trial, relying on the medical report and the circumstances of its recording to conclude it was voluntary and true. The corroborative evidence from prosecution witnesses, particularly PW1 and PW5, was sufficient to support the confession, despite weaknesses in other testimonies. The trial Judge misdirected himself by not thoroughly evaluating the defence's alibi, but this did not occasion a miscarriage of justice as the prosecution evidence placed the appellant at the scene. The s…
Source excerpt
Sempebwa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 11 of 2017) [2018] UGSC 86 (26 October 2018)
The Supreme Court of Uganda upheld Sempebwa Ernest’s embezzlement conviction and six-year sentence, holding that the evidence and confession supported the findings.
Uganda V Mutebi Ronald & Anor. (HCCT-CR-SC-0020 OF 2016) [2018] UGHCCRD 223 (31 July 2018)
The High Court admitted a disputed confession after a trial within a trial, finding it was recorded voluntarily and not procured by torture or inducement.
Obote william v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 12 of 2014) [2017] UGSC 84 (1 February 2017)
The Supreme Court held that the trial court properly admitted the charge and caution statement as both the appellant and his counsel did not dispute its voluntariness, and the procedure followed was consistent with established precedent. The court found that the defences of provocation, self-defence, and accident were not available to the appellant, as the evidence showed he deliberately shot the deceased without any attack or wrongful act from her. The post-mortem and eyewitness testimony supported the prosecution's case. The sentence of life imprisonment was not manifestly excessive or wron…
Source excerpt
