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
Kunsa v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CM 51 of 2023) [2024] UGHCACD 7 (23 July 2024)
The High Court held it lacked jurisdiction to stay execution of a compensation order while a criminal appeal was pending in the Supreme Court, and dismissed the application.
Tumusiime Ashiraf v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 61 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCRD 5 (31 January 2024)
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal as incompetent because the notice of appeal was filed out of time and no extension was sought.
Abooki v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2023) [2022] UGHC 150 (12 July 2022)
The applicant failed to show sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time, as ignorance of the law and inability to hire an advocate are not adequate grounds; prisoners have the option to engage prison authorities to lodge appeals. However, the application was brought promptly, and there is no evidence of dilatory conduct. The intended appeal is plausible, and denying the extension would risk injustice. Therefore, in the interests of justice and given the absence of undue delay, the court exercises its discretion to grant an extension of time for the applicant to file…
Source excerpt
Marwa v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 014/2016) [2021] AfCHPR 61 (2 December 2021)
The African Court found the application admissible but held that Tanzania did not violate the applicant’s Charter rights in his armed robbery conviction appeal.
Uganda v Namuyaba (Criminal Appeal 74 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 91 (7 October 2021)
The High Court dismissed the State’s criminal appeal because the respondent had not been served and was absent, making it unfair to proceed.
Kato Bumali v Uganda [2020] UGSC 14 (26 June 2020)
The application before the Supreme Court improperly combines two distinct requests: extension of time to apply for a certificate of importance and the substantive application for the certificate itself. Under Rule 50(1), (2)(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, a single Justice lacks jurisdiction to hear an application for a certificate of importance, which must be determined by a panel of at least three Justices. While the single Justice has jurisdiction to consider the extension of time, the consolidated nature of the application precludes partial determination. Furthermore, the procedural requir…
Source excerpt
Benyoma v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2016) [2019] AfCHPR 35 (26 September 2019)
The African Court reopened pleadings in Benyoma v Tanzania, accepted the State’s late reparations response, and gave the Applicant 30 days to reply.
Kalijo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 026/2017) [2019] AfCHPR 94 (27 August 2019)
The African Court reopened pleadings in Maulidi Swedi @ Mswezi Kalijo v Tanzania and accepted the Applicant’s reply in the interests of justice.
Weraga v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 2015) [2016] UGHCCRD 492 (27 June 2016)
The court found that the applicant did not have knowledge or possession of the additional evidence—letters from the Administrator General and Commissioner Land Registration—at the time of trial or when he gave evidence. The letters came into existence after the trial and sentencing. The respondent did not file an affidavit in reply, leaving the applicant's affidavit evidence unchallenged. The court held that the requirements for adducing additional evidence on appeal were met: the evidence was not available at trial, was material, and its admission was in the interest of justice. Accordingly,…
Source excerpt
Mugizi v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN 1 of 2014) [2014] UGHCACD 10 (18 August 2014)
The High Court upheld Mugizi Leonard’s corruption conviction, finding that evidence of solicitation and receipt of gratification was proved and dismissal the appeal.
