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
Saif v Sholan (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1955) [1955] EACA 301 (1 January 1955)
The Court of Appeal held that a trial judge’s factual findings may be overturned where material circumstances or probabilities were overlooked, and allowed the cross-appeal.
Musa v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 490 of 1955) [1950] EACA 469 (1 January 1950)
The Court held that accomplice status can differ by count, refused to disturb factual findings on second appeal, and found interpretation difficulties alone insufficient to quash the convictions.
Regina v Shirazi and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1956) [1950] EACA 550 (1 January 1950)
The Court held that a defective judgment did not make the trial a nullity, but the convictions could not stand because the magistrate made no findings on key evidence discrepancies.
Rex v Yafesi Mayamba, Eriazali Mayamba, Yovani Mayamba, Luka Mayamba and Nikanoli Mayamba (Criminal Appeals Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of 1948 (Consolidated)) [1948] EACA 21 (1 January 1948)
The Court of Appeal upheld five murder convictions, rejecting provocation and holding that the trial judge was entitled to rely on witness credibility and demeanour.
Rex v Kichuhi (Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 1947) [1948] EACA 15 (1 January 1948)
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa held that consolidated appeals are still decided separately, and that a second appeal under section 360 lies only on questions of law.
Rex v Hasham (Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 1941) [1941] EACA 93 (1 January 1941)
Second appeal against a conviction for receiving stolen property was dismissed because the Court of Appeal could not reweigh evidence where some competent evidence supported the findings.
Rex v Kala (Criminal AppealNo. 71 of 1941) [1941] EACA 66 (1 January 1941)
The Court held that a second appeal is only permissible on a matter of law, not on questions of fact. The appellant failed to demonstrate any legal issue arising from the lower courts' decisions, as both the magistrate and the Supreme Court had considered the evidentiary presumption regarding the cheque counterfoil and found sufficient factual evidence to support the conviction. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused, reaffirming the principle that findings of fact by the second court are final unless a point of law is involved.
Source excerpt
