Uganda Case Law

Muwonge & 2 Others v Uganda

Muwonge & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 158 of 2018) [2024] UGCA 232 (30 August 2024)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 158 of 2018

Judge

Egonda-Ntende, JA, Cheborion-Barishaki, JA, Asa Mugenyi, JA/ JCC

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by relying on hearsay evidence from witnesses who merely repeated what the co-accused Musisi Livingstone had told them, which is inadmissible under Section 59 of the Evidence Act. The charge and caution statement of Musisi, who was tried separately and did not testify, could not be used against the appellants, as confessions by co-accused are considered evidence of the weakest kind and cannot serve as corroboration. The court held that there was no independent evidence directly implicating the appellants in the murder, and the prosecution's…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Hearsay Rule
• Confession Statements
• Appeal Procedure
• Sentencing Guidelines

Uganda v Mugabe and 5 Others

Uganda v Mugabe and 5 Others (Criminal Session Case 485 of 2018) [2022] UGHCCRD 115 (2 November 2022)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Session Case 485 of 2018

Judge

Elubu, J

The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nabwanika Rehema Halima was unlawfully killed with malice aforethought and that she was kidnapped with intent to murder. The confessions of A1 and A2, corroborated by physical evidence and video reconstruction, established the participation of Mugabe Kamada Shakur, Olo John Bosco, Dumba Ali Salongo Kyagulanyi Sembajja, Kaaya Brian, and Lukwago Herbert in both offences. The court applied the principles of corroboration for accomplice evidence and found sufficient independent facts supporting the confessions. The defence a…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Kidnap With Intent To Murder
• Accomplice Evidence
• Confession Statements
• Burden Of Proof
• Corroboration

Barasa v Uganda

Barasa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 95 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 58 (14 June 2021)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Appeal 95 of 2019

The High Court upheld Barasa Hassan’s theft conviction, finding the evidence proved fraudulent conversion, and that his confession statement was properly admitted.

• Theft
• Evidence Evaluation
• Confession Statements
• Burden Of Proof
• Criminal-appeal
• Confession-evidence

Odeke & 2 Others v Uganda

Odeke & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeals 284, 287, & 429 of 2014) [2019] UGCA 2097 (8 November 2019)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeals 284, 287, & 429 of 2014

Judge

Cheborion-Barishaki, JA, Musota, JA, Tuhaise, JA

The Court of Appeal upheld murder convictions and 25-year sentences, finding the circumstantial evidence and voluntary charge-and-caution statements proved guilt.

• Murder
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Confession Statements
• Sentencing Principles
• Common Intention
• Malice Aforethought

Juliet Katusiime & 2 Ors. Vs Uganda (Crim. Revision CAse No. 02 of 2011)

Juliet Katusiime & 2 Ors. Vs Uganda (Crim. Revision CAse No. 02 of 2011) [2011] UGHC 91 (15 July 2011)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Crim. Revision CAse No. 02 of 2011

Judge

Mukasa, J

The High Court held that its revisionary jurisdiction should not be exercised in respect of interlocutory orders or findings of a trial magistrate that do not finally determine the rights of the parties. The court found that the admission of the charge and caution statement, even if irregular, was an interlocutory decision that could be challenged on appeal after the conclusion of the trial. Entertaining revision applications for every interlocutory order would undermine the constitutional right to a speedy trial and lead to unnecessary delays. The application for revision was therefore not m…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Confession Statements
• Revision Jurisdiction
• Interlocutory Orders

Uganda v Oumo & Anor

Uganda v Oumo & Anor (Criminal Session Case No. 159 of 1994) [1994] UGHCCRD 38 (16 September 1994)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Session Case No. 159 of 1994

Judge

Engwau, J

The court found that the complainant's identification of Levi Oumo was reliable due to her prior acquaintance and the circumstances of the incident. The recovery of stolen property from both accused shortly after the offence and their voluntary confessions provided corroborative evidence. The defence's allegations of torture were not raised during trial nor put to the prosecution witnesses, rendering them an afterthought. The medical evidence, though challenged, supported the occurrence of forceful intercourse. The defence of alibi was not credible and was rebutted by the prosecution's eviden…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Robbery
• Identification Evidence
• Confession Statements
• Recent Possession
• Sentencing Guidelines

Kamukolse and Others v Reginam

Kamukolse and Others v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 550 of 1955) [1950] EACA 521 (1 January 1950)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 550 of 1955

Judge

Bacon, JA, Sinclair, VP, Worley, P

The Court of Appeal quashed robbery and burglary convictions after finding improper reliance on a co-accused’s statement and no trial within a trial, but upheld conspiracy.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Accomplice Evidence
• Confession Statements
• Trial Within A Trial
• Corroboration Requirements
• Accomplice-evidence

Shelani v Rex

Shelani v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1949) [1949] EACA 42 (1 January 1949)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1949

Judge

Edwards CJ, Graham Paul CJ, Gray CJ

The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa ordered a retrial after finding an excluded statement to a magistrate should have been proved through the interpreter.

• Murder
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Confession Statements
• Role Of Interpreter
• Retrial Procedure
• Admissibility-of-evidence

Rex v Kirundi (Cr. App. 117/1933.)

Rex v Kirundi (Cr. App. 117/1933.) [1937] EACA 65 (1 January 1937)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Cr. App. 117/1933.

Judge

Abrahams CJ, Ag P (Uganda), Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya), Sheridan CJ

The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa held that an accused’s statement was inadmissible because it was not properly certified under section 219(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Preliminary Inquiry
• Confession Statements
• Procedural Irregularity
• Criminal-procedure
• Evidence-admissibility