Uganda Case Law

Uganda v Ssegonga Musa

Uganda v Ssegonga Musa (Criminal Session 131 of 2017) [2023] UGHC 245 (11 October 2023)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Session 131 of 2017

Judge

Bukirwa, J

The court found that PW3's oral testimony in court was materially inconsistent with his prior police statement, demonstrating a departure from his earlier position and undermining his credibility. The court, guided by Okwanga Anthony v Uganda and relevant statutory provisions, held that it has discretion to declare a witness hostile where such inconsistencies exist. The court rejected the defence's argument regarding the reading back of the police statement, noting that PW3 acknowledged and signed the statement. The court further held, following Rajesh Yadav & Anr. v State of U.P. and related…

Source excerpt

• Hostile Witness
• Witness Credibility
• Rape Trial Procedure
• Evidence Act Application

Ayesiga Vs Uganda

Ayesiga Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0294 of 2015) [2019] UGCA 148 (13 June 2019)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 0294 of 2015

The Court of Appeal held that the absence of a handwriting expert's opinion on the contested documents (Exhibit P.32 and Receipt No. 077) was not fatal to the conviction, as the court is empowered to make findings on handwriting based on other corroborative evidence. The appellate Judge was justified in relying on the evidence of DW1, as there was no indication that DW1 was an accomplice, and his testimony was corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. The court found that the evaluation of evidence by the appellate Judge was proper, including the treatment of contradictions in official rep…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Office
• Causing Financial Loss
• Evidence Act Application
• Documentary Evidence
• Accomplice Evidence
• Judicial Review Of Facts

Kafumbe v Matovu

Kafumbe v Matovu (CIVIL APPEAL No. 015 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 203 (14 November 2017)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

CIVIL APPEAL No. 015 OF 2016

Judge

Musota, J

The High Court dismissed a civil appeal over a disputed vehicle transaction, holding that the signed agreement showed a sale, not a loan.

• Contract Enforcement
• Sale Of Goods
• Evidence Act Application
• Loan Vs Sale Dispute
• Contract-enforcement
• Evidence-act

Nalumansi & 3 Ors v Bukenya &Anor (Misc Application No. 0872 of 2017)

Nalumansi & 3 Ors v Bukenya &Anor (Misc Application No. 0872 of 2017) [2017] UGHCLD 241 (23 October 2017)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Misc Application No. 0872 of 2017

Judge

Kawesa, J

The High Court Land Division dismissed a contempt application for lack of proof that the respondents breached an interim order restricting construction.

• Contempt Of Court
• Interim Orders
• Burden Of Proof
• Evidence Act Application
• Contempt-of-court
• Interim-orders

Deco Tiles Uganda Ltd v DHL Global Forwarding Ltd

Deco Tiles Uganda Ltd v DHL Global Forwarding Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 671 of 2015) [2016] UGCommC 220 (16 December 2016)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 671 of 2015

The court found that the applicant did not dispute the respondent's claim in the summary suit but sought to set off or counterclaim for losses allegedly caused by the respondent's delay in delivering cargo. The court held that the doctrine of estoppel by deed did not apply because the audit report forming the basis of the set off was subsequent to the written agreement acknowledging indebtedness. Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act were found inapplicable as the applicant did not deny the agreement's existence or terms. The court determined that the applicant's set off or counterclaim did…

Source excerpt

• Summary Suit Procedure
• Leave To Defend
• Set Off And Counterclaim
• Contractual Liability
• Estoppel
• Evidence Act Application

Uganda v Yusuf Gowon & Ors (High Court Criminal Session Case No. 70 of 2002)

Uganda v Yusuf Gowon & Ors (High Court Criminal Session Case No. 70 of 2002) [2003] UGHC 70 (20 August 2003)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

High Court Criminal Session Case No. 70 of 2002

The High Court excluded a Lugbara statement after finding it was not voluntarily made and had been improperly recorded during a trial within a trial.

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Voluntariness Of Statements
• Trial Within Trial
• Burden Of Proof
• Police Conduct
• Evidence Act Application

Stephens N. Mabosi v Uganda Revenue Authority

Stephens N. Mabosi v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Suit No. 699 of 1993) [1995] UGHC 70 (31 January 1995)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 699 of 1993

Judge

Mukanza, J

The High Court held that seizure records proved the quantity of goods taken from the plaintiff, awarded special damages for the missing stock, and refused general damages.

• Conversion Of Goods
• Special Damages
• Burden Of Proof
• Evidence Act Application
• Conversion-of-goods
• Special-damages

Uganda v Isoke

Uganda v Isoke (Criminal Session Case 190 of 1992) [1993] UGHC 84 (21 December 1993)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Session Case 190 of 1992

Judge

Kireju, J

The High Court held that the accused’s cautioned statement was voluntary and properly recorded, and admitted it in evidence despite his claim of coercion.

• Confession Admissibility
• Evidence Act Application
• Voluntariness Of Statements
• Police Procedure
• Accused Rights
• Confession-admissibility

Walwa v Reginam

Walwa v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 1955) [1950] EACA 453 (1 January 1950)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 1955

Judge

Bacon, JA, Mahon, ACJ (Tanganyika), Worley, P

The appellate Judge did not err in law by substituting the correct inference regarding the pointsmen's status as accomplices, as this did not depend on credibility but on the proper application of legal principles to the facts found. The court reaffirmed that, under section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the binding authority of Davies v. D.P.P., a conviction based on uncorroborated accomplice evidence is lawful if the court warns itself of the inherent danger and is satisfied of the truth of the evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The requirement for 'special' or 'exceptional' circum…

Source excerpt

• Accomplice Evidence
• Corroboration Requirements
• Credibility Assessment
• Mens Rea
• Judicial Inference
• Evidence Act Application

Rex v Mushhad

Rex v Mushhad (Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1939) [1940] EACA 7 (1 January 1940)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1939

Judge

Sheridan CJ, Webb CJ, Whitley CJ

The East African Court of Appeal held that an accused charged with buying gold without a licence had the burden of proving he held one, and dismissed the appeal.

• Burden Of Proof
• Licensing Offences
• Evidence Act Application
• Gold Trading Regulation
• Burden-of-proof
• Licensing-offences