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
Barongo John v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0196 of 2025) [2025] UGCA 187 (13 June 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a murder sentence of 23 years and 11 months, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s sentencing discretion.
Munyaneza & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 117 of 2016) [2025] UGCA 153 (21 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that although the trial judge's wording regarding the sentence was ambiguous, he properly exercised his discretion by considering both mitigating and aggravating factors and deducting the remand period from the sentence. The sentence of 28 years and 63 days' imprisonment was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence, the sentencing range, and the maximum penalty for aggravated robbery. The trial judge was alive to the principles of consistency, uniformity, and the requirement to deduct the remand period. There was no miscarriage of justice, and the sentence di…
Source excerpt
Wamimbi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 184 of 2012) [2025] UGCA 78 (12 March 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a 24-year sentence for aggravated defilement, finding the remand period was properly deducted and the sentence not excessive.
Nalukoba v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 150 of 2012) [2025] UGCA 70 (11 March 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that, although the trial judge did not arithmetically deduct the remand period from the sentence, he expressly stated that he considered the time spent on remand in his sentencing notes. At the time of sentencing, there was no strict requirement for courts to deduct remand time arithmetically, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Rwabugande v Uganda [2017] UGSC 8. The appellate court held that the sentence was neither illegal nor ambiguous, as the trial judge complied with the constitutional obligation under Article 23(8) by considering the remand period. The appeal…
Source excerpt
Opiyo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 573 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 58 (27 February 2025)
The trial judge failed to comply with Article 23(8) of the Constitution by not ascertaining and deducting the period spent on remand before passing sentence. This rendered the sentence unlawful. The appellate court set aside the sentence and, considering mitigating factors such as the appellant's plea of guilty, remorsefulness, youth, and likelihood of reform, as well as the gravity of the offence, imposed a new sentence of 18 years' imprisonment, deducting the 1-year remand period to yield a final sentence of 17 years' imprisonment to run from the date of conviction.
Source excerpt
Kaweesa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 112 of 2014) [2025] UGCA 38 (13 February 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly considered both aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing the appellant to 35 years' imprisonment for murder, a term within the statutory range and consistent with precedent. The judge's approach to the remand period was in line with the Supreme Court's interpretation at the time, which required consideration but not arithmetic deduction. The subsequent change in law (Rwabugande Moses v Uganda) mandating arithmetic deduction does not apply retrospectively. Therefore, there was no error in principle or failure to consider material…
Source excerpt
Kweesa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2014) [2025] UGCA 195 (13 February 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a 35-year sentence for murder, holding that the trial judge properly weighed aggravating and mitigating factors and considered remand time.
Ojok v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 634 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 8 (24 January 2025)
The Court of Appeal of Uganda set aside a 20-year murder sentence, resentencing the appellant to 18 years and deducting 12 months spent on remand.
Bossa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 47 of 2021) [2024] UGSC 47 (12 December 2024)
The Supreme Court of Uganda dismissed an appeal against sentence, holding that the plea bargain and record supported the sentences imposed and no interference was warranted.
Rujumba v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 710 of 2015) [2024] UGCA 321 (22 November 2024)
The Court of Appeal struck out a criminal appeal against sentence for being filed out of time and without leave, making it incompetent.
