Uganda Case Law

Twongo v Uganda

Twongo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 34 of 2018) [2024] UGSC 48 (13 December 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 34 of 2018

Judge

Tuhaise, JSC, Mike Chibita, JSC, Stephen Musota, JSC, Madrama , JSC, Catherine Bamugemereire, JSC

The Supreme Court found that the conviction of the appellant for murder was unsafe due to significant gaps in the prosecution's evidence. The identification of the appellant relied solely on a single witness whose testimony was not corroborated by contemporaneous police records or other witnesses. The absence of key witnesses, such as Emmanuel Muhenda and Othembi, and the failure to produce the original police file or prior statements, undermined the reliability of the prosecution's case. The court held that the conditions for safe identification were not met, and the evidence did not prove t…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Proof Of Ingredients
• Identification Evidence
• Burden Of Proof
• Malice Aforethought
• Adverse Inference

Mujuni v Uganda

Mujuni v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 38 of 2016) [2024] UGCA 73 (27 March 2024)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 38 of 2016

Judge

Kibeedi Mutangula, JA, Gashirabake, JA, Kihika ,JA

The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence as a whole, including the identification of the appellant by PW2 under favourable conditions (moonlight, prior familiarity, direct physical contact during the attack), and satisfactorily explained the inconsistencies in PW2's statements. The absence of medical witnesses was not fatal, as death was proved by other credible evidence. The contradictions in the prosecution's case were minor and did not amount to deliberate untruthfulness. The appellant's alibi was rebutted by the prosecution evidence. Regarding sentenc…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Identification Evidence
• Contradictions In Testimony
• Adverse Inference
• Sentencing Guidelines

Isingoma and Another v Uganda

Isingoma and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 497 of 2017; Criminal Appeal 501 of 2017) [2023] UGCA 271 (16 October 2023)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 497 of 2017 ; Criminal Appeal 501 of 2017

Judge

Egonda-Ntende, JA, Bamugemereire, JA, Monica K. Mugenyi, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the identification evidence against both appellants was unreliable and insufficient to support a conviction. The only identifying witness, PW1, claimed to recognise appellant no.1 under difficult circumstances, with other witnesses unable to identify the assailants and evidence suggesting the use of masks. The prosecution failed to call material witnesses, such as the arresting officers and those involved in the chain of custody for the exhibits, and did not produce physical evidence such as the stolen property or the weapon allegedly used. The evidence connecti…

Source excerpt

• Aggravated Robbery
• Rape
• Identification Evidence
• Burden Of Proof
• Adverse Inference
• Appellate Review

Ocan v Oyoo

Ocan v Oyoo (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2016) [2020] UGHC 98 (22 May 2020)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2016

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The High Court dismissed a land appeal, upholding a finding that the respondent owned the disputed land and that the appellant was a trespasser.

• Customary Land Ownership
• Adverse Inference
• Burden Of Proof
• Trespass To Land
• Customary-land-ownership
• Adverse-inference

Ocira & 4 Others v Langoya

Ocira & 4 Others v Langoya (Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2015) [2019] UGHC 48 (29 August 2019)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2015

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The High Court dismissed a land appeal, upheld the respondent’s ownership claim, and held that the appellants’ disruptive conduct and grave defacement justified adverse inferences.

• Ownership Disputes
• Locus In Quo Procedure
• Spoliation Of Evidence
• Adverse Inference
• Appeals Process
• Land-ownership-dispute