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
Kare Distribution Limited v African Rivers Fund (Miscellaneous Application 2714 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 270 (25 March 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to recall a witness and file pretrial documents, holding that the applicants had voluntarily absented themselves and abused process.
Sewava Ssalongo and 18 Others v Male Mukasa and 2 Others (Revision Application 34 of 2018) [2021] UGHCLD 471 (1 March 2021)
The High Court partly allowed a revision application, permitting cross-examination of a co-defendant’s witness but upholding a costs order against absent applicants.
Dagamra v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1956) [1956] EACA 36 (1 January 1956)
The court allowed a criminal appeal after a magistrate recalled a prosecution witness at the close of the defence case without allowing cross-examination, contrary to section 150 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Karuditu v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 1955) [1950] EACA 480 (1 January 1950)
The Court held that although the correct procedure was not followed—specifically, the failure to allow second cross-examination of the police officer in the presence of assessors after the statement was ruled admissible—this omission did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The principle established in R. v. Murray applies equally to trials with assessors, entitling the accused to present the full case regarding extra-judicial statements to both judge and assessors. However, in this case, the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming even without the disputed statement, and the proce…
Source excerpt
Soni v Official Receiver, Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1940) [1940] EACA 5 (1 January 1940)
The Court held that the production of a demand promissory note is prima facie evidence of a debt in bankruptcy proceedings, and the burden shifts to the Official Receiver to demonstrate circumstances justifying rejection. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the debtor and to adduce evidence in the High Court, which was a procedural error. The right to cross-examine and to present evidence is fundamental where the Official Receiver's suspicions are based on the absence of direct entries in the debtor's books, especially when the Suspense account figures correspond to the…
Source excerpt
Devji v Jinabhai (C.A. 6/1934.) [1937] EACA 87 (1 January 1937)
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to enlarge the time for filing a defence, as the appellant had failed to comply with the order despite being aware of it. Once this discretion was exercised, the judge was correct to proceed to hear the plaintiff's evidence and enter judgment without permitting the defendant or his counsel to cross-examine or present rebuttal evidence. The court distinguished the present case from Ross v. Scriven, noting that in this instance, oral evidence was taken in support of the claim, whereas in Ross v. Scriven,…
Source excerpt
