Uganda Case Law

Mahoro & Ors v Uganda (HCT-05-CR-CN-0013-2004)

Mahoro & Ors v Uganda (HCT-05-CR-CN-0013-2004) [2004] UGHCCRD 11 (14 September 2004)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT-05-CR-CN-0013-2004

Judge

Mugamba, J

The court held that the charge against the appellants was fundamentally defective because it failed to specify the species of fish and the statutory definition of 'immature' fish as required under the Fish Act. The absence of these particulars rendered the charge vague and did not adequately inform the accused of the nature of the offence, violating both statutory requirements and constitutional safeguards under Article 28. The convictions and sentences based on such a charge could not stand, regardless of the guilty plea, as the accused were not properly made to understand the offence before…

Source excerpt

• Plea Procedure
• Charge Particulars
• Fish Act Offences
• Conviction Validity

Uganda v Olet

Uganda v Olet (Criminal Revision 20 of 89) [1990] UGHC 34 (7 March 1990)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Revision 20 of 89

Judges

GM OKELLO, J

The trial magistrate failed to follow the mandatory procedure after the accused's plea of guilty by not putting the narrated facts to the accused for admission or denial, rendering the conviction unsafe. The particulars of the charge were vague, especially in count 2, failing to adequately inform the accused of the alleged offence. The accused's previous conviction was not proved as required by law, yet it was used to justify consecutive sentences and to treat the accused as an habitual offender. These procedural irregularities are fundamental and cannot be cured; therefore, the convictions a…

Source excerpt

• Plea Of Guilty Procedure
• Proof Of Previous Conviction
• Sentencing Irregularities
• Charge Particulars
• Habitual Offender
• Magistrate Duties

Sirichand v Queen

Sirichand v Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 1955) [1955] EACA 271 (1 January 1955)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 1955

Judge

O'Connor CJ, Rudd J

The court upheld a careless-driving conviction, holding that section 47(1) created two distinct offences, and that a stop sign marked the minor road at the junction.

• Careless Driving
• Traffic Signs
• Charge Particulars
• Major Minor Roads
• Duplicity In Charges
• Careless-driving