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
Ekiring v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 144 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 484 (30 June 2025)
The High Court at Soroti dismissed Ekiring Yuventino’s bail application in a murder case, finding a risk of witness interference despite fixed abode and sureties.
Ivan Wavamuno aka Isaac v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 49 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 504 (27 June 2025)
The High Court at Jinja granted bail to a man charged with aggravated robbery, finding a fixed abode, substantial sureties, and no reason to deny release.
Wako Robert Salongo v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 480 (4 June 2025)
The High Court at Wakiso denied bail to Wako Robert Salongo in an aggravated robbery and conspiracy case, finding a risk of absconding and no exceptional circumstances.
Bariburuhe v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 271 (13 May 2025)
The applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required under Section 16(3) of the Trial on Indictments Act for capital offences of murder and aggravated robbery. The application and supporting affidavit did not provide evidence or computation to substantiate entitlement to mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution. The applicant's age (approximately 40 years) does not qualify as infancy or advanced age, and no grave illness or certificate of no objection from the DPP was presented. The court found that the grounds advanced were insufficient for favorable exerc…
Source excerpt
Kasiiku & Another v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 21 & 23 of 2025) [2025] UGHCACD 11 (22 April 2025)
The court found that both applicants had furnished substantial securities and sound sureties, and that the respondent had not credibly challenged the suitability of these guarantees. The court rejected alarmist submissions regarding flight risk and interference with investigations, noting the absence of affidavit evidence and the fact that other co-accused released on bail had not defaulted or interfered with proceedings. The court emphasized the constitutional presumption of innocence and the discretionary nature of bail, holding that exceptional circumstances are not mandatory in every case…
Source excerpt
Omiat v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 71 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 225 (14 April 2025)
The court held that although the applicant demonstrated a fixed place of abode and presented substantial sureties, the gravity of the offence, the applicant's age, and allegations of prior threats to the deceased and his family created a real possibility of interference with prosecution witnesses. The court emphasized that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirement that he would not interfere with witnesses if released on bail. The absence of opposition from the respondent did not relieve the applicant of the burden to prove entitlement to bail. The interest of justice, therefore, requir…
Source excerpt
Besigye and Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 113 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 16 (11 April 2025)
The High Court denied bail to Kizza Besigye and Obed Lutale, holding that the treason charges, ongoing investigations, and risk of interference outweighed their age and sureties.
Orago v Uganda (miscellaneous Application . 123 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 170 (8 April 2025)
High Court bail ruling in a rape prosecution. The court accepted fixed abode and substantial sureties, but dismissed bail due to likely witness interference.
Twesigomwe v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 16 of 2025) [2025] UGHCACD 6 (17 March 2025)
The High Court granted bail to an accused facing corruption and money laundering charges, finding his abode and sureties sufficient despite state objections.
Ejiru alias Paul v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 79 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 123 (13 March 2025)
The court found that while the applicant demonstrated a fixed place of abode and presented substantial sureties, there was a real possibility of interference with prosecution witnesses, who are likely to be known and related to the applicant given the nature of the offence. The gravity of the charge and the relationship between the applicant and the victim increased the risk of interference. The applicant failed to satisfy the court that he would not interfere with witnesses or abscond if released. In balancing the applicant's rights and the interests of justice, the court exercised its discr…
Source excerpt
