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
Elineo Mutyaba Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2011) [2012] UGHC 35 (27 February 2012)
High Court appeal partly allowed: malicious damage conviction was quashed for a fair-trial breach on amended charges, while criminal trespass was upheld.
Ajoket v Uganda (High Court Misc. Application No. 12 of 1997) [1997] UGHCCRD 2 (3 November 1997)
The High Court allowed Ajoket Charles’s criminal appeal because he was convicted under a different Penal Code section from the one charged, making the trial a nullity.
Butt v Queen (criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1954) [1954] EACA 175 (1 January 1954)
The court upheld a conviction for official corruption, finding no prejudice from amending the charge to use “X” and no error in the three-year sentence.
Patel v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1951) [1951] EACA 188 (1 January 1951)
The Court upheld Patel’s conviction for official corruption, holding that his own evidence could cure any no-case point and that no amendment of particulars was required.
Gichimu v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1951) [1951] EACA 311 (1 January 1951)
The conviction was quashed because the charge as framed did not disclose an offence known to law, and the plea of guilty was wrongly recorded due to ambiguity and misleading particulars. The defect in the charge was not mere surplusage; it materially affected the accused's understanding of the offence. The appellate court found that the accused was prejudiced by the inaccurate phrasing, and the conviction could not stand. The order of forfeiture was also quashed as it was dependent on the conviction. The court distinguished between curable defects and those that render a conviction unsustaina…
Source excerpt
Rex v Sowe (Con. C. 538/1932.) [1932] EACA 13 (1 January 1932)
The court quashed a conviction because the charge was defective, the accused was not properly informed of the substance of the offence, and no amendment was recorded.
