Uganda Case Law

Isingoma Asafu v Uganda - High Court Criminal Appeal No. MSK-00-CR-CV-0009 of 1999 (High Court Criminal Appeal No. MSK -00- CR CV-0009 of 1999)

Isingoma Asafu v Uganda - High Court Criminal Appeal No. MSK-00-CR-CV-0009 of 1999 (High Court Criminal Appeal No. MSK -00- CR CV-0009 of 1999) [1999] UGHC 5 (25 August 1999)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

High Court Criminal Appeal No. MSK -00- CR CV-0009 of 1999

The High Court quashed a conviction for count 1 because the charge and conviction did not match, but upheld count 2 for causing bodily injury by reckless driving.

• Reckless Driving
• Dangerous Driving
• Causing Bodily Harm
• Traffic Offences
• Criminal Sentencing
• Reckless-driving

Fey v Queen

Fey v Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 2059 of 1953) [1954] EACA 166 (1 January 1954)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 2059 of 1953

Judge

Hearne CJ

The court upheld a dangerous driving conviction, holding that manslaughter-level negligence is not required and that an error of judgment can still be dangerous driving.

• Dangerous Driving
• Traffic Offences
• Standard Of Proof
• Error Of Judgment
• Recklessness
• Road Safety

Naker v Reginam

Naker v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1956) [1950] EACA 528 (1 January 1950)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1956

Judge

Briggs, JA, Sinclair, VP, Worley, P

The court held that a change in the appellate bench made the final Supreme Court decision a nullity, but affirmed the dangerous-driving conviction and reduced sentence.

• Dangerous Driving
• Inefficient Brakes
• Driving Without Licence
• Appellate Jurisdiction
• Change In Court Constitution
• Criminal-appeal

Godfrey v Rex

Godfrey v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 1947) [1947] EACA 71 (1 January 1947)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 1947

Judge

Bourke J, Nihill, C.J

The court held that evidence of alcohol consumption prior to the commission of a traffic offence is admissible under section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, not as proof of another crime but as relevant to the accused's probable mental and physical condition at the time of the incident. The court found that the appellant's conduct did not amount to dangerous driving under section 15 of the Traffic Ordinance, as the circumstances did not justify a finding of criminal recklessness. The conviction for careless driving under section 16(1) was upheld, as the facts supported a finding of lack of due…

Source excerpt

• Traffic Offences
• Careless Driving
• Dangerous Driving
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Alcohol Consumption
• Standard Of Care

Rex v Balabanoff (Cr.App. No. 36/1936)

Rex v Balabanoff (Cr.App. No. 36/1936) [1936] EACA 140 (1 January 1936)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Cr.App. No. 36/1936

Judge

Sheridan CJ, Webb, J

The East African Court of Appeal quashed a conviction for alleged dangerous driving, finding the evidence insufficient and the charge bad for duplicity.

• Duplicity Of Charge
• Reckless Driving
• Dangerous Driving
• Traffic Offences
• Duplicity-of-charge
• Dangerous-driving

Prudhomme v Rex (Cr. App. 7/1927.)

Prudhomme v Rex (Cr. App. 7/1927.) [1927] EACA 42 (1 January 1927)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Cr. App. 7/1927.

Judge

Pickering ACJ, Sheridan, J, Stephens, J

The Court of Appeal upheld a dangerous-driving conviction, holding that contributory negligence is no defence in crime and civil-law passing rules do not control criminal liability.

• Dangerous Driving
• Contributory Negligence In Crime
• Highways Ordinance Interpretation
• Criminal Responsibility
• Reckless Driving
• Dangerous-driving

Idirisaa Mugisa V Uganda

Idirisaa Mugisa V Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0016 of 2008) [2013] UGHC 253 (4 March 2013)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 0016 of 2008

Judge

Owiny-Dollo, J

The court found that the charge sheet was fatally defective because the statement of offence alleged reckless driving while the particulars described dangerous driving, which are distinct offences under the Traffic and Road Safety Act. This variance created confusion and made it impossible for the accused to receive a meaningful explanation of the charge's ingredients, especially as he relied on interpretation and had no legal representation. As a result, the plea of guilty could not be considered unequivocal, and the conviction and sentence based on such a plea were invalid. The trial magist…

Source excerpt

• Plea Procedure
• Defective Charge Sheet
• Reckless Driving
• Dangerous Driving
• Language Rights
• Conviction And Sentence