Uganda Case Law

Mahoro & Ors v Uganda (HCT-05-CR-CN-0013-2004)

Mahoro & Ors v Uganda (HCT-05-CR-CN-0013-2004) [2004] UGHCCRD 11 (14 September 2004)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT-05-CR-CN-0013-2004

Judge

Mugamba, J

The court held that the charge against the appellants was fundamentally defective because it failed to specify the species of fish and the statutory definition of 'immature' fish as required under the Fish Act. The absence of these particulars rendered the charge vague and did not adequately inform the accused of the nature of the offence, violating both statutory requirements and constitutional safeguards under Article 28. The convictions and sentences based on such a charge could not stand, regardless of the guilty plea, as the accused were not properly made to understand the offence before…

Source excerpt

• Plea Procedure
• Charge Particulars
• Fish Act Offences
• Conviction Validity

Mohamed v Uganda

Mohamed v Uganda (Criminal Revision 31 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 56 (3 May 1991)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Revision 31 of 1991

Judges

GM OKELLO, J

The High Court upheld convictions on three traffic counts after finding the vague pleas were cured by admitted facts, but quashed count 4 and corrected illegal default sentences.

• Traffic Offences
• Plea Equivocality
• Sentencing Illegality
• Default Sentences
• Conviction Validity
• Guilty-pleas

Uganda v Leonida Okello and Ovuru Ayiga

Uganda v Leonida Okello and Ovuru Ayiga (Criminal Confirmation No. 15/1987) [1990] UGHC 46 (13 November 1990)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Confirmation No. 15/1987

Judges

GM OKELLO, J

The convictions were quashed because the facts narrated did not disclose the commission of any offence under the Witchcraft Act. There was no evidence that the accused possessed any article by common repute used for witchcraft, nor was there any direct or indirect threat to cause disease or harm by means of witchcraft. The convictions were based on mere suspicion and were therefore illegal. Consequently, the sentences imposed were also set aside. The court reaffirmed the principle that sentences for offences arising from the same transaction should run concurrently, not consecutively, but thi…

Source excerpt

• Witchcraft Offences
• Conviction Validity
• Sentencing Practice

Rex v Amimi (Cr. App. 78/1933.)

Rex v Amimi (Cr. App. 78/1933.) [1933] EACJ 6 (1 January 1933)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Cr. App. 78/1933.

Judge

Barth CJ, Lucie-Smith, J. (Kenya), Thomas, J. (Kenya)

The Court dismissed a criminal appeal, holding that the same two assessors were present throughout trial and section 282(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was complied with.

• Trial Procedure
• Absence Of Assessors
• Conviction Validity
• Criminal-procedure
• Assessors
• Trial-irregularity