Uganda Case Law

Masika Fina & 2 Others v Uganda

Masika Fina & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeals No. 221 & 227 of 2017) [2020] UGCA 2034 (10 March 2020)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeals No. 221 & 227 of 2017

Judge

Kakuru, JA, Madrama, JA, Egonda-Ntende, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants participated in the murder of Derrick Coggon. The evidence relied upon by the trial judge, including alleged threats and circumstantial evidence, was either hearsay, uncorroborated, or insufficient to establish guilt. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that circumstantial evidence must exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The investigation was found to be inadequate, with alternative leads not pursued and critical evidence not substanti…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Conspiracy To Murder
• Burden Of Proof
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Joint Offenders
• Evaluation Of Evidence

Asiimwe & Anor v Uganda (HCT-04-CR-CN-0048-2009)

Asiimwe & Anor v Uganda (HCT-04-CR-CN-0048-2009) [2011] UGHCCRD 85 (10 June 2011)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT-04-CR-CN-0048-2009

Judge

Rugadya, J

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against convictions for conspiracy to murder, holding that the evidence, including calls and overt acts, was sufficient.

• Conspiracy To Murder
• Overt Act Requirement
• Evaluation Of Evidence
• Role Of Accomplice Evidence
• Land Dispute Motive
• Conspiracy-to-murder

Arvind Patel v Uganda

Arvind Patel v Uganda [2003] UGSC 35 (26 October 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

The Supreme Court held that section 142(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act does not restrict the number of magistrates who may preside over a trial, provided the accused is not prejudiced and has the opportunity to request witnesses to be recalled. The interpretation in Eustance v Rep. (1970) EA 393 was found to be too narrow and not applicable to Ugandan law. The Court further held that the plea of guilty by a co-accused should not be taken as evidence against another accused in a conspiracy charge, as criminal responsibility is personal. However, in this case, the trial magistrate did not rel…

Source excerpt

• Conspiracy To Murder
• Magistrates Courts Act Interpretation
• Joint Trial Procedure
• Plea Of Guilty Effect
• Burden Of Proof
• Prejudice And Misdirection

Arvind Patel v Uganda

Arvind Patel v Uganda [2003] UGSC 25 (17 June 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Supreme Court of Uganda granted bail pending appeal, finding the application justified by the applicant’s good character, compliance with bail, and a non-frivolous appeal.

• Bail Pending Appeal
• Criteria For Bail
• Conspiracy To Murder
• Appellate Jurisdiction
• Discretionary Powers
• Bail-pending-appeal

Maguha and Others v Rex (Cr. A.s 122, 123, 124, 125 and 126/1934 (Consolidated).)

Maguha and Others v Rex (Cr. A.s 122, 123, 124, 125 and 126/1934 (Consolidated).) [1937] EACA 182 (1 January 1937)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Cr. A.s 122, 123, 124, 125 and 126/1934 (Consolidated).

Judge

Abrahams CJ, Ag P (Uganda), Law, C.J (Zanzibar), McDougall, Ag. C.J. (Tanganyika)

The Court held that the trial was invalid because two separate informations—one for murder and one for conspiracy to murder the same person—were tried together. This contravenes established precedent (Rex v. Kristofa Male) and the procedural requirements of the Tanganyika Criminal Procedure Code. As a result, the convictions arising from such a trial cannot stand and must be quashed. However, due to the nature of the evidence presented, the Court ordered that the appellants be retried in accordance with proper procedure.

Source excerpt

• Procedure For Multiple Informations
• Murder
• Conspiracy To Murder