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
Beinomugisha v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 478 of 2014) [2025] UGCA 4 (24 January 2025)
The Court of Appeal set aside a death sentence for murder and replaced it with 39 years' imprisonment, after finding the penalty manifestly harsh and excessive.
Langonya v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 188 of 2012) [2024] UGCA 325 (27 November 2024)
The Court of Appeal reduced a murder death sentence to 25 years' imprisonment, finding the original sentence harsh and manifestly excessive.
Nabigwo aka Hajji Tanywa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 82 of 2012) [2024] UGCA 139 (7 June 2024)
The Court of Appeal upheld the murder conviction but reduced the death sentence, finding the death penalty was not warranted and imposing 28 years and 5 months.
Damian v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 048/2016) [2024] AfCHPR 8 (4 June 2024)
The court found that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty under Tanzanian law deprived judicial officers of discretion to consider the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender, rendering the penalty arbitrary and in violation of Article 4 of the Charter. The court further held that execution by hanging constitutes cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, violating Article 5. The court dismissed allegations of fair trial violations, finding that the applicant was tried within a reasonable time, was afforded effective legal representation, and that the evidence was p…
Source excerpt
Opian v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 119 of 2017) [2024] UGCA 107 (13 May 2024)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to adequately consider significant mitigating factors, including the appellant's mental health, remorse, and status as a first offender. The appellant's conduct and psychiatric evidence indicated he was suffering from anxiety and panic disorders at the time of the offence, raising doubts about his mental stability. The sentencing guidelines require consideration of mental health as a mitigating factor, and the trial judge did not enumerate or properly weigh these factors. The circumstances did not meet the threshold of 'rarest of rare' cas…
Source excerpt
William v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 030/2016) [2024] AfCHPR 3 (13 February 2024)
The Court found that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty under Section 197 of the Tanzanian Penal Code violates the right to life and dignity protected by Articles 4 and 5 of the African Charter. The lack of judicial discretion and failure to consider mitigating circumstances renders the sentence arbitrary and inhuman. The applicant exhausted all local remedies by appealing to the highest domestic court. The assessment of evidence and conduct of trial did not disclose manifest error or miscarriage of justice, and the applicant's right to a fair hearing was not violated. The Court aw…
Source excerpt
Zabron v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 051/2016) [2023] AfCHPR 34 (26 October 2023)
The African Court reopened pleadings in Zabron v Tanzania and gave the Applicant 14 days to reply to the State’s late amended-pleadings response.
Hussein v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2018) [2023] AfCHPR 7 (11 February 2023)
The Court determined that it has prima facie jurisdiction to consider the application for provisional measures, as the alleged violations concern rights protected under the African Charter and the Protocol, to which the Respondent State is a party. Given the Applicant's sentence of death and the risk of irreparable harm to his rights under Articles 3(2) and 7(1)(c) of the Charter, the Court found that the circumstances warranted the issuance of provisional measures. The Court exercised its powers under Article 27(2) of the Protocol to order a stay of execution of the death sentence pending de…
Source excerpt
Iguna v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 020/2017) [2022] AfCHPR 42 (1 December 2022)
The Court found that the domestic courts properly evaluated the identification evidence and applied relevant jurisprudence, including guidelines for assessing witness identification. There was no manifest error or miscarriage of justice in the conviction of the applicant. The applicant failed to substantiate his claim of discrimination, and the record did not demonstrate any differential treatment or violation of Article 2 of the Charter. The applicant exhausted local remedies and filed the application within a reasonable time, considering his incarceration and lack of awareness of the Court.…
Source excerpt
Nhabi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 004/2018) [2022] AfCHPR 70 (23 June 2022)
The Court found that the applicant failed to pursue his case with the required diligence, as evidenced by his repeated failure to file the record of proceedings and submissions on reparations despite multiple extensions and proof of delivery of notices. The Court emphasized that Rule 65 of the Rules of Court empowers it to strike out an application where the applicant fails to pursue the case or where it is no longer justified to continue examination. Given the applicant's inaction and the procedural history, the Court exercised its discretion to strike out the application from its cause list…
Source excerpt
