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
Kiiza Jovan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2020) [2025] UGCA 178 (30 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a 35-year sentence for murder, finding the trial court had considered mitigation and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
Nyendwoha Fenekansi and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 143 of 2022) [2025] UGCA 182 (30 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal struck out an omnibus ground of appeal for non-compliance with Rule 66(2) and dismissed the murder appeal.
Kasekende George v Sanya Charles (Civil Appeal 33 of 2024) [2025] UGHCLD 69 (21 May 2025)
The High Court allowed a land appeal, set aside the lower court’s judgment, and held that the respondent had not proved a lawful Kibanja interest or valid authority to sell.
Ndayishimye v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 222 of 2019) [2025] UGCA 141 (14 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a conviction and 30-year sentence for aggravated defilement, finding the victim’s testimony and medical evidence sufficient.
Lugendo Peter v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0068 of 2019) [2025] UGCA 128 (8 May 2025)
The trial judge erred by failing to arithmetically deduct the period spent on remand from the sentence, contrary to Article 23(8) of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretation in Rwabugande Moses vs Uganda. While the sentence of 40 years was within the statutory range for aggravated defilement and the trial judge considered relevant mitigating factors, the inclusion of remand time rendered the sentence illegal. The appellate court set aside the lower court's sentence and imposed a lawful sentence of 30 years, deducting 3 years and 10 months spent on remand, resulting in an effect…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Ssemuga and Another (Criminal Appeal 18 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 223 (26 March 2025)
High Court appeal on prima facie case, false pretences, personation, and conspiracy. The court upheld the acquittals on those counts but found one reasoning error.
Sentambule v Musoke (Civil Application 481 of 2024) [2025] UGCA 83 (24 March 2025)
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to admit additional evidence on a second appeal from the High Court acting in its appellate jurisdiction, as expressly prohibited by Rule 32(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions. The applicant's reliance on inherent powers and Supreme Court authorities is misplaced, as those decisions interpreted Supreme Court rules, which do not contain an equivalent prohibition. The omission of locus in quo proceedings, while unfortunate, does not create an exception to the clear statutory bar. The application is therefore incompetent and must be dis…
Source excerpt
Kitosi & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 14 of 2014) [2025] UGSC 10 (21 February 2025)
The Supreme Court held that its role on second appeal is to determine whether the first appellate court properly re-evaluated the evidence and applied the correct legal principles. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had adequately re-evaluated the identification evidence and the defence of alibi, considering the conditions under which the identification was made, the familiarity of the witnesses with the appellants, the presence of sufficient lighting, and the proximity of the witnesses to the scene. The Court further held that the evidence of a single identifying witness can suffice if…
Source excerpt
Osman v Dramadri & 5 Others (Civil Appeal 54 of 2018) [2025] UGCA 53 (18 February 2025)
Second appeal over land limitation and adverse possession. The Court of Appeal held the claim was time-barred and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Roofings (U) Limited v Basangwa Isaac (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 387 (20 December 2024)
The Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof that the Appellant supplied iron sheets of gauge 28 instead of gauge 26. The only evidence adduced was a label on the last iron sheet and a photograph, which was unclear and not corroborated by technical or scientific analysis. The Appellant presented a Certificate of Analysis from UNBS confirming the gauge as 26, and the Respondent did not effectively rebut this evidence or dispute the presence of his counsel during the verification process. The trial Chief Magistrate erred by disregarding the probative value of the Appellant's evidence…
Source excerpt
