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
Uganda v Aijuka (Criminal Appeal 28 of 2022) [2023] UGHCACD 12 (22 October 2023)
The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the respondent’s acquittal for alleged false customs documents, finding no proof of authorship or causing the making of the documents.
Uganda v Kalemere and 2 Others (Criminal Case 7 of 2018) [2022] UGHCACD 4 (21 April 2022)
The High Court convicted two accused for using falsified customs documents and all three for conspiracy over a tax-evasion scheme involving imported containers.
Womoli v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2020) [2021] UGHCACD 2 (22 January 2021)
The High Court found that the appellant's right to legal representation was not violated as he had ample opportunity to have counsel present, but his lawyer repeatedly failed to attend without sufficient explanation. The trial magistrate acted within discretion in refusing further adjournments, balancing the right to representation with the need for a speedy trial. The admission of prosecution exhibits during cross-examination of the appellant was lawful and relevant to rebut his assertions, and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The trial magistrate considered both prosecution and de…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Kasibo Joshua (Criminal Application No. 0206 0f 2018) [2020] UGCA 50 (18 February 2020)
The Court of Appeal granted certification for a third appeal to the Supreme Court, holding the customs-law issues raised were questions of great public importance.
The Hair Care Center Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No.1 of 2001) [2002] UGHC 44 (22 January 2002)
The High Court held that an importer was not liable for a penalty arising from customs offences committed by its agent, though storage charges remained payable.
Modhaf v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1956) [1950] EACA 546 (1 January 1950)
The Court held that section 160 of the East African Customs Management Act, 1952, makes forfeiture automatic for items liable by reason of the offence, including containers and contents.
Rex v Gilani (Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1945) [1946] EACA 68 (1 January 1946)
Section 242 of the Customs Ordinance, 1926, creates legal presumptions for each count in an information, placing the burden of rebuttal on the accused. Conflicting presumptions arising from separate counts do not neutralize each other because each presumption applies only to its respective count, which is treated as a distinct charge for evidentiary purposes. The court must consider the presumption relevant to each count independently and disregard presumptions relating to other counts when determining guilt. The trial magistrate did not misdirect himself in assessing the credibility of the a…
Source excerpt
Devraj and Company v Lalji and Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1946) [1946] EACA 10 (1 January 1946)
The Court of Appeal held that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to order forfeiture of the lorry under section 217 of the Customs Ordinance, rendering the order ineffectual. The learned Judge erred in dismissing the suit in detinue based solely on the magistrate's order and without proper proof of the criminal conviction or proceedings. The Crown, as the party retaining the lorry, bore the burden of proving its entitlement to do so under the Ordinance, which it failed to discharge. The appellate court found that the issues of whether the lorry was properly subject to forfeiture and the timin…
Source excerpt
Commissioner of Customs v Jivraj (Confirmation Case No. 684 of 1944) [1944] EACA 1 (1 January 1944)
The East African Court of Appeal set aside a customs conviction, holding that intent to defraud the revenue had to be proved by evidence and could not rest on an averment alone.
Rex v Thani (Cr. App. No. 42/1935) [1937] EACA 204 (1 January 1937)
The East African Court of Appeal held that post-importation handling of smuggled sugar did not amount to smuggling or abetting smuggling under the Ordinance.
