Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 1 court collection
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:49 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

1 Jan 1951

Criminal Law [1951] EACA 207

Rex v Mbugeramula

Rex v Mbugeramula (Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1951 .) [1951] EACA 207 (1 January 1951)

Court: East African Court of Appeal
Case number: Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1951 .
Judge: Lewis, Ag. J. (Uganda), Nihill P, Worley VP

The Court held that after the coming into force of section 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1950, the procedure for forfeiture or confiscation of property in criminal cases is governed by its provisions, which require the court to exercise its discretion judicially and provide an opportunity for third parties, such as innocent owners, to establish their rights to the property. The Court found that the High Court was correct in setting aside the peremptory confiscation order made by the Magistrate without hearing the owner, as the exercise of discretion must be based on the facts of each ca…

Source excerpt

Forfeiture Of Property
Arms And Ammunition Offences
Judicial Discretion
Revisional Jurisdiction
Criminal Procedure
Rights Of Third Parties

Read case analysis

1 Jan 1947

Criminal Law [1947] EACA 59

Rex v Habib (Confirmation, Case No. 1018 of 1947)

Rex v Habib (Confirmation, Case No. 1018 of 1947) [1947] EACA 59 (1 January 1947)

Court: East African Court of Appeal
Case number: Confirmation, Case No. 1018 of 1947
Judges: Coffey AgJ, Nihill, C.J

The court held that the Magistrate was required by law to impose a minimum fine of £75 for a second conviction under section 44 of the Liquor Ordinance, 1934, and substituted this amount for the lower fine imposed. The court further held that the Magistrate had no authority to order the destruction of the revolver under the Arms and Ammunition Ordinance, 1925, and that only forfeiture to the Crown was permissible. The court declined to make an order for payment of fines by instalments in confirmation proceedings but directed the Magistrate to hear an application from the accused on this issue.