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
Kaitare v Kasolo (Civil Appeal 41 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 205 (20 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over crop damage, holding that evidence proved the appellant’s cattle destroyed the respondent’s bean garden.
Uganda v Aruho (Criminal Session Case 629 of 2019) [2023] UGHCCRD 131 (6 September 2023)
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredient of theft of the motorcycle beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant testified that the motorcycle was not stolen and the accused ran away when villagers arrived. However, the evidence established that the accused assaulted the complainant with intent to steal and used violence, satisfying the elements of attempted robbery under section 287 of the Penal Code Act. The medical evidence and testimony confirmed that the accused unlawfully caused grievous harm to the complainant, meeting the requirements of section 219 of the Pe…
Source excerpt
Acia v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 56 of 2021) [2023] UGCA 147 (25 May 2023)
The Court of Appeal quashed Acia Martin’s murder conviction, finding the evidence unreliable and holding that the trial judge failed to give reasons for departing from assessors’ unanimous acquittal advice.
Rutakikirwa v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 013/2016) [2022] AfCHPR 11 (24 March 2022)
The African Court found Tanzania violated Rutakikirwa’s right to defence by failing to provide free legal assistance, and awarded TZS 300,000.
Imperial Group of Hotels Limited v Sadolin Paints (U) Limited (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 253 (30 September 2019)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate did not exceed his pecuniary jurisdiction, as the subject matter throughout the trial remained Ug. Shs. 31,690,280, which is within the statutory limit for a chief magistrate. The Appellant's argument that the final award should be restricted to the subject matter pleaded was rejected, as factors such as interest, costs, and damages may affect the final award but do not alter the jurisdictional basis. The Appellant failed to sufficiently rebut the Respondent's claim, did not provide alternative accounts, and did not facilitate the re-measurement…
Source excerpt
Nampiima Vs Lubwama & 3 Ors (Civil Appeal No.13 of 2018) [2019] UGHCLD 36 (12 July 2019)
The High Court upheld an appeal from the Chief Magistrate’s Court, finding no proof of duress in signing transfer forms and confirming the damages award.
Gumisiriza & Anor v Katuramu (Civil Appeal No. 0022 of 2014) [2016] UGHCCD 72 (18 October 2016)
The High Court dismissed a civil appeal over crop damage caused by cattle, upholding findings on liability, special damages, and costs.
Bakoraho v Uganda (D.R. Criminal Appeal No. Mka 5/93) [2002] UGHCCRD 23 (20 February 2002)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate was entitled to rely on the evidence of PW2 and PW3, which placed the appellant at the scene of the crime and sufficiently disproved the alibi. The court held that the identification evidence was reliable and that the trial magistrate's findings were supported by the record. The court rejected the argument that the case was fabricated due to an earlier land dispute and found no miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed as the conviction and sentence were proper in law.
Source excerpt
Uganda v Olobo (Criminal Session Case 429 of 1995) [1996] UGHC 18 (29 July 1996)
The High Court of Uganda convicted Deo Olobo of kidnapping with intent to murder, rejecting his compulsion defence and sentencing him to four years’ imprisonment.
Ali v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 13 of 1993) [1994] UGSC 19 (29 July 1994)
The Court found no evidence of bias on the part of the trial judge, either in personal connection or in the conduct of the trial. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Leo, Karakuza, and William, was found to be substantially reliable despite minor discrepancies. The defence's alternative narrative, including the claim that another officer ordered the killing and that the appellant was not present, was undermined by lack of cross-examination and rebutting evidence. The appellant's claim of acting under superior orders was rejected, as unlawful orders do not justify murder. T…
Source excerpt
