Uganda Case Law

Uganda v Ntaganda & Another

Uganda v Ntaganda & Another (Criminal Confirmation 9 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 53 (10 February 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Confirmation 9 of 2024

Judge

Karemani Jamson K, J

The High Court confirmed that the sentences imposed by the trial magistrate were within statutory limits and appropriate given the circumstances of the case. However, the trial magistrate failed to explicitly and arithmetically deduct the period spent on remand from the sentences, as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution and relevant sentencing guidelines. The High Court recalculated the sentences, deducting the exact periods spent on remand for each convict, and ordered that the remaining terms be served accordingly. This ensures compliance with constitutional and statutory mandates…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Procedure
• Remand Period Deduction
• Cattle Theft
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction

Rex v Sitonik (Confirmation Case No. 908/39)

Rex v Sitonik (Confirmation Case No. 908/39) [1938] EACA 159 (1 January 1938)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Confirmation Case No. 908/39

Judge

Sheridan CJ, Thacker J

A confession made to a Chief while the accused was in custody of tribal retainers was held inadmissible, and the conviction for cattle theft was set aside.

• Confession Evidence
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Police Custody
• Cattle Theft
• Confession-evidence
• Admissibility-of-evidence

Rex v Korie (Cr. App. No. 91 of 1938)

Rex v Korie (Cr. App. No. 91 of 1938) [1938] EACA 197 (1 January 1938)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Cr. App. No. 91 of 1938

Judge

Lane, Ag. J, Sheridan CJ, Thacker J

The court held that possession at arrest or recent possession is not required under section 10 of the Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance, and dismissed the appeal.

• Cattle Theft
• Burden Of Proof
• Statutory Offences
• Duplicity Of Charges
• Criminal-law
• Cattle-theft