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
Uganda v Nansubuga & 2 Others (Session Case 9 of 2023) [2023] UGHCICD 6 (22 January 2023)
Confirmation-of-charges ruling in an anti-terrorism case. The High Court declined to confirm all counts, finding the prosecution had not shown substantial grounds to believe the accused committed the offences.
Uganda v Gidongo (Criminal Session No. 0424 of 2016) [2019] UGHCCRD 11 (7 February 2019)
The court found that the prosecution proved all elements of aggravated robbery beyond reasonable doubt: theft of property (the motorcycle), use of violence (victim struck with a hammer and rendered unconscious), use of a deadly weapon (hammer), and participation of the accused. The identification of the accused was reliable, as the victim had sufficient opportunity to observe him both before and during the crime, and the identification parade was conducted with substantial compliance to procedural safeguards. The accused's conduct at the scene and failure to disassociate himself from the crim…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Kabasomi & Ors (HCT-01-CR-SC-0193 OF 2016.) [2018] UGHCCRD 134 (4 May 2018)
The High Court of Uganda at Fort Portal held that the prosecution had not proved participation in a murder charge and acquitted all three accused at no-case-to-answer stage.
Uganda v Ambayo & Anor (Criminal Session Cases No. 0011 of 2016 And No. 0018 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCRD 47 (27 February 2018)
The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Tumunik Mario Stephen died as a result of an unlawful act actuated by malice aforethought, caused by the accused. The medical evidence established the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock due to severe bleeding from head injuries inflicted with a deadly weapon. Eyewitness testimony placed both accused at the scene, with A1 striking the fatal blow and A2 encouraging the act. The court held that minor inconsistencies in witness statements did not undermine the reliability of identification. Applying sections 19 and 20 of th…
Source excerpt
Hofni Topacho Ongiertho and 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 1 of 93) [1994] UGSC 20 (4 March 1994)
Uganda Supreme Court quashed treason convictions after finding the evidence unreliable and ruling that the first appellant was convicted on an offence not charged.
Hofni Topacho Ongiretho & 2ors v Uganda [1994] UGSC 9 (3 March 1994)
The Supreme Court of Uganda quashed treason convictions after finding the first appellant was wrongly convicted of aiding and abetting under the wrong provision.
Aramanani V Uganda (Criminal Appeal 5 of 1987) [1990] UGSC 15 (8 January 1990)
Supreme Court of Uganda allowed a murder appeal, holding that key evidence was improperly admitted, the alleged confession was not proved voluntary, and the case was too weak to sustain conviction.
Gidagurija and Another v Regina (Criminal Appeals Nos. 172 and 173 of 1952) [1952] EACA 253 (1 January 1952)
The Court found that the interpreter did not act in a police capacity and took exceptional care to ensure the statements were voluntary and properly interpreted. The extra-judicial statements were therefore admissible. For Gamunga, the combination of his presence at the scene, failure to dissociate from the murder, post-crime association with the killer, and his claim for 'gimarda' as a reward for the killing provided sufficient corroboration and supported the trial judge's finding of guilt. For Waida, however, the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His…
Source excerpt
Rhemtulla and Another v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1955) [1950] EACA 430 (1 January 1950)
Court upheld the first appellant’s theft conviction but substituted the second appellant’s conviction to receiving stolen coffee, finding accomplice evidence sufficiently corroborated.
Rex v Amina and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 259 and 260 of 1948 Consolidated) [1949] EACA 29 (1 January 1949)
The Court held that a person cannot be convicted as aider and abettor unless the principal offence was committed. It quashed some convictions and upheld others.
