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
Mukisa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 33 of 2020) [2023] UGCA 319 (7 November 2023)
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mukisa Wahabu’s criminal appeal, upholding his aggravated defilement conviction and 17 years 10 months’ imprisonment.
Mayengo v Uganda [2023] UGSC 57 (6 September 2023)
The Supreme Court found that the trial judge thoroughly analyzed the evidence regarding the appellant's age, including medical evidence and the mother's testimony, and correctly concluded the appellant was 19 at the time of the offence. The Court of Appeal properly re-evaluated this evidence and was not manifestly wrong in its findings. The Supreme Court emphasized that it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts unless there is a clear error. On sentencing, the Court held there was no illegality or error of law in the sentence imposed, and the Supreme Court lacks…
Source excerpt
Mayengo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 50 of 2021) [2023] UGSC 54 (6 September 2023)
The Supreme Court found that both the trial court and the Court of Appeal properly evaluated the evidence regarding the appellant's age, relying on medical evidence and the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility. The appellant was found to be 19 years old at the time of the offence, not a minor. The Court also held that there was no illegality in the sentence imposed, as the trial judge considered aggravating and mitigating factors, deducted the remand period, and sentenced the appellant within the law. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that it cannot interfere with findings of fact or se…
Source excerpt
Shazilly v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 40 of 2020) [2023] UGCA 221 (16 August 2023)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence and applied the correct legal principles. Contradictions in witness testimony regarding the victim's age and the number of sexual acts were minor and did not undermine the prosecution's case. The victim was found to be under 14 years of age based on medical evidence, parental testimony, and the court's own observation. The appellant was determined to be a person in authority over the victim, satisfying the statutory requirements for aggravated defilement. The sentence imposed—32 years, 3 months, and 28 days—was wit…
Source excerpt
Ogwang v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 170 of 2014) [2023] UGCA 242 (12 June 2023)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly rejected the appellant's alibi based on credible prosecution evidence, including the testimony of the appellant's stepmother placing him near the scene and a voluntary confession. The conviction was supported by corroborated circumstantial evidence, medical findings, and the confession. However, the appellate court determined that the trial court failed to conclusively ascertain the appellant's age, which was material given the proximity to the age of majority and the consequences under the Children's Act. The sentence of 18 years was fo…
Source excerpt
Okori v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2018) [2023] UGCA 13 (18 January 2023)
The Court of Appeal found that although the plea-taking process was ultimately recorded, the trial judge failed to properly determine the appellant's age at the time of the offence. The medical report presented a range (21–23 years) at the time of examination in 2016, which, when adjusted for the period spent on remand, indicated the appellant was likely under 18 years old in February 2013. The charge sheet and other evidence supported this conclusion. The trial judge did not conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the appellant's age using all available sources as required by the Children Act.…
Source excerpt
Kasuja v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2019) [2023] UGCA 11 (11 January 2023)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence and that the conviction for aggravated defilement was supported by the sworn and corroborated testimony of the victim and other witnesses. However, the court determined that the appellant's age at the time of the offence was not conclusively established and, giving the benefit of doubt, found it highly probable that the appellant was below 18 years when the offence was committed. Consequently, the appellant should have been sentenced as a child under the Children's Act, which limits imprisonment to a maximum of 3 y…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Ojara Stephen & Another (Criminal Case No. 253 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 64 (9 July 2020)
The High Court in Gulu accepted a guilty plea for aggravated robbery, found age uncertainty in the accused's favor, and ordered discharge for time served.
Serubega Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.0147 of 2008) [2015] UGCA 93 (16 October 2015)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to ascertain the appellant's age at the time of the offence, which was a critical factor in determining the proper procedure and sentencing. The evidence regarding age was inconclusive, and the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was 18 years or older. In line with statutory and case law, the doubt regarding age was resolved in favour of the appellant, who should have been treated as a child offender. Consequently, the sentence imposed exceeded the statutory maximum for a child, and the appellan…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Mawejje Ronald (HCT-00-CR-SC-0122 OF 2006) (HCT-00-CR-SC-0122 OF 2006) [2007] UGHC 16 (6 December 2007)
High Court of Uganda conviction for defilement after finding the prosecution proved the victim’s age, intercourse, and the accused’s identity beyond reasonable doubt.
