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
Kayinamura v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 124 of 2022) [2024] UGCA 96 (26 April 2024)
The Court of Appeal allowed this aggravated defilement appeal, finding substantial contradictions in the evidence and an unrebutted alibi. The conviction and sentence were quashed.
Habiyakale v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 215 of 2022) [2024] UGCA 337 (24 January 2024)
The Court of Appeal upheld Habiyakale Wilson’s conviction and 17 years 9 months’ sentence for aggravated defilement, finding the evidence and the indictment sufficient.
Mutesasira v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 266 of 2017) [2023] UGCA 320 (7 November 2023)
The Court of Appeal upheld Mutesasira Yasin’s rape conviction and 20-year sentence, finding the alleged inconsistencies minor and the sentence not excessive.
Eluku v Ecodu (Civil Appeal 28 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 306 (11 October 2023)
The High Court found that neither party conclusively proved ownership under customary tenure as required by law. The appellant's case was undermined by major contradictions regarding the size of the suit land, possession, and cultivation, as well as lack of documentary evidence or credible witnesses to support his claim of inheritance and possession. The respondent's evidence was more consistent and credible, showing uninterrupted possession and cultivation since 1971. The doctrine of adverse possession applied, as the respondent had possessed the land for well over twelve years, thereby exti…
Source excerpt
Shazilly v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 40 of 2020) [2023] UGCA 221 (16 August 2023)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence and applied the correct legal principles. Contradictions in witness testimony regarding the victim's age and the number of sexual acts were minor and did not undermine the prosecution's case. The victim was found to be under 14 years of age based on medical evidence, parental testimony, and the court's own observation. The appellant was determined to be a person in authority over the victim, satisfying the statutory requirements for aggravated defilement. The sentence imposed—32 years, 3 months, and 28 days—was wit…
Source excerpt
Omara v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 76 of 2020) [2023] UGCA 151 (18 May 2023)
The Court of Appeal upheld Omara Moses’s rape conviction, but found the 25-year sentence excessive and reduced it to 14 years from the conviction date.
Kamoti v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2018) [2023] UGCA 90 (16 March 2023)
The Court of Appeal upheld James Kamoti’s conviction for aggravated defilement, but found the original sentence of 45 years and 9 months excessive and reduced it.
Kalyesubula and 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2018) [2023] UGCA 48 (21 February 2023)
The Court of Appeal found that the alleged contradictions in the prosecution evidence were minor and were satisfactorily explained during re-examination. The law does not require a particular number of witnesses to prove a fact, and the discrepancies regarding identification and arrest did not materially affect the prosecution's case. The trial judge properly evaluated the evidence and arrived at a correct decision. Regarding sentencing, the court held that the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits for aggravated robbery, which carries a maximum of death. The trial judge considered…
Source excerpt
Muhindo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2011) [2022] UGCA 299 (23 December 2022)
The Court of Appeal found that both PW1 and PW2 had prior knowledge of the appellant and sufficient opportunity to observe him during the robbery, with ample lighting from torches, making their identification credible. Minor inconsistencies in their testimonies did not undermine the core facts. The absence of a medical report or production of the weapon was not fatal, as credible witness testimony established the use of a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 285(3) of the Penal Code Act. On sentencing, the trial judge complied with Article 23(8) as interpreted at the time by stating he…
Source excerpt
Muhanguzi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2017) [2022] UGCA 256 (14 October 2022)
The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution failed to prove the element of theft beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions and hearsay evidence regarding the amount and recovery of money allegedly stolen. However, the appellant was positively identified as the assailant who used a rope to strangle the complainant, causing grievous harm. The rope was deemed a deadly weapon under the Penal Code Act. Since theft was not proved, the conviction for aggravated robbery could not stand. The court substituted a conviction for attempted robbery, as the appellant's actions and intentions…
Source excerpt
