Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 1 court collection
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:47 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

1 Jan 1947

Criminal Law [1947] EACA 22

Rex v Otieno and Others

Rex v Otieno and Others (Criminal Appeals Nos. 250, 251 and 252 of 1946) [1947] EACA 22 (1 January 1947)

Court: East African Court of Appeal
Case number: Criminal Appeals Nos. 250, 251 and 252 of 1946
Judge: Graham Paul CJ, Sheridan CJ, Thacker J

The court found that all three appellants, having jointly engaged in a theft and subsequently confronted by police while in possession of stolen property including a loaded revolver, held a discussion immediately prior to the fatal shooting. The evidence showed that none of the appellants dissociated themselves from the act, and the possession and use of the revolver was known to all. The court held that the inference of a common intent to kill the policeman was justified by their association, discussion, and conduct, and that the doctrine of common intent under Section 23 of the Penal Code a…

Source excerpt

Murder
Common Intent
Joint Liability
Intoxication Defence
Evidence Inference

Read case analysis

1 Jan 1935

Criminal Law [1935] EACA 76

Rex v Patel and Another

Rex v Patel and Another (Criminal Appeal 184/1934.) [1935] EACA 76 (1 January 1935)

Court: East African Court of Appeal
Case number: Criminal Appeal 184/1934.
Judge: Abrahamas, C.J. (Tanganyika), Law, C.J (Zanzibar), Webb, J

The court held that an agreement to commit an unlawful act, such as conspiracy to steal, may be inferred from a series of acts not in themselves unlawful if the cumulative circumstances are consistent only with guilt and exclude any reasonable innocent explanation. The evidence showed that the appellants had exclusive control over the goods before they entered the Customs warehouse, that large quantities of goods were missing, and that the only reasonable conclusion was that the appellants conspired to steal the goods. The court found that the trial judge was correct in concluding that the ac…