Uganda Case Law

Uganda v Sekabira & 10 Ors (HC CR. CAse No. 0085 of 2010)

Uganda v Sekabira & 10 Ors (HC CR. CAse No. 0085 of 2010) [2012] UGHC 92 (14 May 2012)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HC CR. CAse No. 0085 of 2010

Judge

Ochan, J

The court found that the accused persons were unlawfully detained for eleven days, far beyond the constitutional limit of forty-eight hours, violating their rights to liberty and a fair, speedy trial under Articles 23(4), 28(1), and 44(c) of the Constitution. The prosecution conceded these violations but offered no legal authority to excuse them. The charge under section 7(1)(b) and 7(2)(c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act was found to be void for vagueness, failing to define the offence with sufficient clarity as required by Article 28(7). Furthermore, the investigation was conducted by officers be…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Detention
• Fair Trial Rights
• Defective Charge
• Void For Vagueness
• Unlawful Investigation
• Police Misconduct

Nassanga Eliva v Uganda

Nassanga Eliva v Uganda (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2007) (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2007) [2008] UGHC 9 (18 August 2008)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2007

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, quashing convictions for smuggling and possession of smuggled goods after finding the prosecution case unproved.

• Smuggling
• Possession Of Smuggled Goods
• Burden Of Proof
• Defective Charge
• Constructive Possession
• Criminal-appeal

Niyonzima v Uganda

Niyonzima v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. Kab-00-cr-cn-0007-2001) [2002] UGHCCRD 20 (20 February 2002)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. Kab-00-cr-cn-0007-2001

Judge

Mugamba, J

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal for obtaining credit by fraud, holding the charge was defective and the alleged complainant was not a legal entity.

• Obtaining Credit By Fraud
• Defective Charge
• Legal Entity Status
• Business Names Registration
• Conviction And Sentence
• Criminal-law

Makau v The Queen

Makau v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 1956) [1956] EACA 17 (1 January 1956)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 1956

Judge

Murphy J, O'Connor CJ

The appeal succeeded because the charge failed to aver essential elements of the offence and the record did not show the area was a closed district.

• Defective Charge
• Plea Of Guilty
• Closed Districts
• Licence Requirement
• Summary Trial
• Criminal-appeal

Nyamu v Queen

Nyamu v Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 1956) [1956] EACA 40 (1 January 1956)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 1956

Judge

Murphy J, O'Connor CJ

The conviction was quashed because the charge failed to aver and the record failed to establish two essential ingredients of the offence: that the area was a closed district and that the accused was a person who required a licence to remain there. The plea entered by the accused did not amount to an unequivocal plea of guilty to every element of the offence, as required by law. The absence of evidence or particulars regarding the closed district status of the area and the accused's licensing requirement rendered the conviction unsafe. The appellate court held that these deficiencies were fata…

Source excerpt

• Plea Of Guilty
• Elements Of Offence
• Defective Charge
• Outlying Districts
• Summary Trial

Gichimu v Rex

Gichimu v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1951) [1951] EACA 311 (1 January 1951)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1951

Judge

Lockhart-Smith, J, Nihill P, Worley VP

The conviction was quashed because the charge as framed did not disclose an offence known to law, and the plea of guilty was wrongly recorded due to ambiguity and misleading particulars. The defect in the charge was not mere surplusage; it materially affected the accused's understanding of the offence. The appellate court found that the accused was prejudiced by the inaccurate phrasing, and the conviction could not stand. The order of forfeiture was also quashed as it was dependent on the conviction. The court distinguished between curable defects and those that render a conviction unsustaina…

Source excerpt

• Defective Charge
• Animal Diseases Ordinance
• Plea Of Guilty
• Forfeiture Order
• Amendment Of Charge
• Nullity Of Trial

Kibungi and Another v Reginam

Kibungi and Another v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1956) [1950] EACA 590 (1 January 1950)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1956

Judge

Bacon, JA, Briggs (Acting Vice-President), Sinclair, AP

The Court of Appeal held that defective charges and equivocal pleas of guilty made the convictions a nullity in a cattle-movement prosecution.

• Plea Of Guilty
• Defective Charge
• Animal Movement Offences
• Procedural Nullity
• Defective-charge
• Guilty-plea

Rex v Shah and Another

Rex v Shah and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 308 and 309 of 1948 consolidated) [1948] EACA 67 (1 January 1948)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeals Nos. 308 and 309 of 1948 consolidated

Judge

De Lestang J, Nihill P

The court held that a conviction under Regulation 13(1) required proof the storage premises were not under the accused’s occupation or control for business purposes.

• Defective Charge
• Regulatory Offences
• Burden Of Proof
• Statutory Interpretation
• Defective-charge
• Criminal-appeal