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
Tumuhimbise Crescent Tibarwesereka v Uganda (Miscellaneous Cause No. 18 of 2024) [2025] UGHCACD 14 (16 June 2025)
The High Court granted the prosecution a final seven-day period to commit the applicant for trial, declining immediate dismissal for delay in a corruption case.
Barihaihi & Anor. v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2011) [2019] UGCC 8 (8 July 2019)
The Constitutional Court held that committal proceedings under the Trial on Indictments Act are procedural and do not violate constitutional rights or oust High Court jurisdiction.
Kamya Wavamuno v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 16 of 2000) [2002] UGSC 46 (10 January 2002)
The Supreme Court held that although there were irregularities in the committal proceedings, these did not amount to a nullity or occasion a miscarriage of justice, as the appellant was represented by counsel, informed of the charges, and suffered no prejudice. The doctrine of recent possession was properly applied: the appellant was found in possession of stolen US dollars with serial numbers matching those stolen in the robbery, only four days after the crime, and failed to provide an innocent explanation. The nature of the property and the alert to all banks and forex bureaux made it impos…
Source excerpt
Queen v M'igane and Another (Criminal Case No. 120 of 1954) [1954] EACA 156 (1 January 1954)
The court held that the committal proceedings were fundamentally defective because the magistrate relied on extra-judicial statements not properly put in evidence, as the recording magistrate was not called as a witness. This violated the mandatory requirements of section 229 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which are designed to ensure a fair trial by allowing the accused to cross-examine witnesses and by requiring proper authentication of statements. The failure to comply with these requirements was an incurable irregularity that prejudiced the accused, depriving them of a possible chance of…
Source excerpt
Sesero v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1951) [1951] EACA 183 (1 January 1951)
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa upheld a murder conviction, rejecting provocation on the facts and noting a non-prejudicial committal-stage procedural error.
Rex v Kipalata (Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1946) [1946] EACA 44 (1 January 1946)
The court held that although the information for murder was irregularly filed because the depositions at committal did not disclose the offence of murder, this irregularity was not fatal to the conviction. The appellant was given timely notice of the additional evidence and the substance of the new witnesses' testimony. The defence was not prejudiced, as the cause of death was not disputed and the appellant's only argument was for a reduction to manslaughter based on extenuating circumstances. The trial judge carefully considered all possible defences and found none sufficient to reduce the c…
Source excerpt
Rex v Mdoka and Another (Cr. App. 150/1933.) [1937] EACA 79 (1 January 1937)
The court held that although evidence on oath given by the accused before the committing magistrate can generally be used against him at trial, the deposition in this case was improperly admitted because section 266 of the Tanganyika Criminal Procedure Code refers specifically to unsworn statements. The Legislature distinguishes between the methods of admitting sworn and unsworn statements, and the formalities for admitting sworn evidence were not satisfied. Nevertheless, the exclusion of this evidence did not affect the propriety of the conviction, as the remaining evidence established a pri…
Source excerpt
Rex v Dad (Cr. Rev. Case No. 35/1936) [1936] EACA 134 (1 January 1936)
The court held that a magistrate in committal proceedings is entitled to weigh the evidence and is not bound to commit for trial solely because there is evidence which, if believed, would support a conviction. The guiding principle is that if the magistrate is of the opinion that the effect of the evidence is such that it ought not reasonably to satisfy the trial court of the accused's guilt, he should dismiss the charge. In this case, the magistrate found the evidence insufficient to establish culpable negligence and refused to commit the accused for trial. The High Court found no reason to…
Source excerpt
