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
Kahigwa Rehema v Kahiji Idi (Civil Appeal 27 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 307 (4 April 2025)
The High Court allowed an appeal over crop damage caused by cattle, finding private nuisance proved, awarding special and general damages, and setting aside the counterclaim.
Turyamureeba v Bagaza (Civil Appeal 2 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 380 (29 May 2024)
The High Court dismissed a civil appeal over a UGX 8,000,000 debt, upholding the trial court’s finding that the written agreement was valid and enforceable.
KCB Bank of Uganda v Muhumuza (Civil Appeal 51 of 2021) [2023] UGCommC 242 (5 December 2023)
The High Court allowed KCB Bank Uganda’s appeal, holding it was only a receiving bank and not liable to refund the respondent’s unpaid share-subscription money.
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
Apoto v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 199 of 2017) [2023] UGCA 245 (28 April 2023)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to comply with Article 23(8) of the Constitution by not deducting the period spent on remand from the sentence imposed. The judge's general reference to time spent on remand was insufficient, as the law requires an arithmetic deduction of the exact period. The sentence of 40 years was therefore illegal. The appellate court reviewed comparable cases and determined that, given the seriousness of the crime and the appellant's status as a first offender, a sentence of 20 years was appropriate. After deducting the period of 3 years and 5 days s…
Source excerpt
Magemeso v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2011) [2022] UGCA 155 (24 May 2022)
The Court of Appeal quashed a murder conviction, holding that the circumstantial evidence left the appellant a suspect rather than proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Sasazi and 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 133 of 2012; Criminal Appeal 454 of 2012; Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2012) [2021] UGCA 80 (17 September 2021)
The Court of Appeal upheld convictions for rape and aggravated robbery, but reduced the sentences after finding the original terms excessive in light of age and precedent.
Mbogo Rajab v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0401 of 2014) [2019] UGCA 2060 (18 December 2019)
The Court of Appeal found that the identification evidence against the appellant was of poor quality. The single identifying witness observed the assailant under stressful and difficult conditions, with the assailant's face partially concealed and no prior familiarity. The identification parade relied on a mark on the appellant's palm, which medical evidence confirmed was an old scar, not a fresh wound from the incident. Contradictions between police testimony and medical reports undermined the prosecution's case. The Court held that the trial judge failed to adequately test the identificatio…
Source excerpt
Kisule Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2010) [2019] UGCA 172 (25 June 2019)
The Court of Appeal quashed Kisule Francis’s murder conviction, holding the trial judge failed to properly caution himself about single-witness identification evidence.
Kabuya v Uganda [2018] UGSC 37 (30 July 2018)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence and correctly identified the appellant as the perpetrator of rape, given the favourable conditions for identification and prior familiarity between the victim and appellant. The alleged grudge was not substantiated and did not undermine the prosecution's case. However, the sentence imposed was ambiguous and illegal as the trial Judge failed to deduct the period spent on remand, contrary to Article 23(8) of the Constitution. The appellate court exercised its powers to resentence the appellant, taking into account al…
Source excerpt
