Uganda Case Law

Kajubi Farouk alias Kinene Joshua v Uganda

Kajubi Farouk alias Kinene Joshua v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0417 of 2019) [2025] UGCA 189 (16 March 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 0417 of 2019

Judge

Buteera, DCJ, Luswata, JA, Kihika ,JA

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to properly inquire into the appellant's age, despite clear evidence and repeated statements by the appellant that he was under 18 at the time of the offence. The court held that the medical report (PF24) indicating an approximate age of 18 was not conclusive, and that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was an adult. In accordance with the Children Act and relevant case law, any doubt as to age must be resolved in favour of the accused. Since the appellant was a minor at the time of the off…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Child Offenders
• Sentencing Of Minors
• Burden Of Proof On Age

Namata v Uganda

Namata v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 166 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCRD 68 (19 September 2021)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Miscellaneous Application 166 of 2021

Judge

Elubu, J

The High Court granted bail to a 17-year-old accused after she had spent over a year on remand, relying on mandatory juvenile remand limits under the Children Act.

• Juvenile Bail
• Remand Periods
• Aggravated Trafficking
• Child Offenders
• Juvenile-bail
• Remand-periods

Namata v Uganda

Namata v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 166 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCRD 108 (19 September 2021)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Miscellaneous Application 166 of 2021

Judge

Elubu, J

The applicant, a juvenile charged with a capital offence, has been on remand for a period far exceeding the statutory maximum of three months as stipulated under Section 91(5)(a) of the Children Act. The law is couched in mandatory terms, requiring release on bail after this period unless there is a serious danger to the child. The court found no such danger present and determined that all other considerations, including the risk of absconding, are secondary to the statutory mandate. The applicant is therefore entitled to bail as a matter of right, subject to the court's satisfaction regardin…

Source excerpt

• Juvenile Bail
• Remand Periods
• Aggravated Trafficking
• Child Offenders
• Court Discretion
• Surety Requirements

Namata v Uganda

Namata v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 166 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCRD 102 (19 September 2021)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Miscellaneous Application 166 of 2021

Judge

Elubu, J

The court found that the applicant, a juvenile charged with a capital offence, had been on remand for a period far exceeding the statutory maximum of three months as stipulated under Section 91(5)(a) of the Children Act. The law is couched in mandatory terms, requiring release on bail once the statutory period is exceeded, regardless of the gravity of the offence. The court emphasized that, for juveniles, institutional detention should be avoided as much as possible, and that the overriding consideration is compliance with statutory timelines. The respondent's concerns about absconding and la…

Source excerpt

• Juvenile Bail
• Remand Periods
• Aggravated Trafficking
• Child Offenders

Uganda v Omirambe

Uganda v Omirambe (Criminal Case 15 of 2018) [2021] UGHCCRD 89 (14 April 2021)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Case 15 of 2018

Judge

Gadenya, J

The High Court held that section 129A does not create a child-to-child sex offence; it only sets procedure. The accused was to be tried for aggravated defilement in the High Court.

• Defilement
• Aggravated Defilement
• Child Offenders
• Jurisdiction Of Courts
• Penal Code Interpretation
• Aggravated-defilement