Uganda Case Law

Balanda v Uganda

Balanda v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 448 of 2017) [2024] UGCA 111 (13 May 2024)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 448 of 2017

Judge

Kiryabwire, JA, Kibeedi Mutangula, JA, Monica K. Mugenyi, JA

The Court found that the evidence of PW1 was sufficiently corroborated by other witnesses and the post-mortem report, and that she was competent to testify. The trial judge did not err in relying on her evidence, and the conviction was upheld. Regarding sentence, the Court held that while sentences for murder vary, the 49-year sentence imposed was manifestly harsh and excessive in light of recent authorities. Applying Section 11 of the Judicature Act, the sentence was reduced to 30 years, with the period spent on remand (4 years and 3 months) deducted, resulting in a custodial sentence of 25…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Sentencing Principles
• Evidence Corroboration
• Competency Of Witnesses
• Remand Deduction

Salum v Rex

Salum v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1951) [1951] EACA 217 (1 January 1951)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1951

Judge

Lockhart-Smith, J, Nihill P, Worley VP

The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa upheld exclusion of a deaf mute witness’s evidence, holding the trial judge could reject it where the interpretation method was too crude.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Competency Of Witnesses
• Deaf Mute Witnesses
• Judicial Discretion
• Admissibility-of-evidence
• Competency-of-witnesses

Said and Others v Ghulum

Said and Others v Ghulum (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1946) [1947] EACA 8 (1 January 1947)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1946

Judge

Bartley J, Graham Paul CJ, Nihill P

The Court held that the Indian Evidence Act, having been applied to Kenya, governs all judicial proceedings in courts, including the Kathi's Court, regardless of the religious background of the parties or the nature of the dispute. The Mohammedan rules of evidence, being non-statutory and expressly repealed by section 2(1) of the Act, no longer apply to the reception of evidence in such courts. The Application to Natives of Indian Acts Ordinance (Cap. 4) does not restrict the Evidence Act's application, as the Act pertains to courts and judicial proceedings, not to persons. Consequently, the…

Source excerpt

• Rules Of Evidence
• Competency Of Witnesses
• Inheritance And Succession
• Application Of Statutes
• Mohammedan Law In Civil Proceedings

Rex v Nakome and Another

Rex v Nakome and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 165 and 166 of 1947) [1947] EACA 47 (1 January 1947)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeals Nos. 165 and 166 of 1947

Judge

Bartley J, Graham Paul CJ, Nihill P

The Court of Appeal held that evidence taken through double interpretation was inadmissible unless both interpreters testified, and that a monogamous wife was incompetent to testify against her husband.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Competency Of Witnesses
• Interpretation Of Statements
• Admissibility-of-evidence
• Competency-of-witnesses
• Criminal-appeal