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
Barasa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 95 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 112 (14 June 2021)
High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against a theft conviction, holding that the evidence of conversion, confession, and witness testimony was sufficient.
Barasa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 95 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 79 (14 June 2021)
The High Court dismissed Barasa Hassan’s criminal appeal, upholding his conviction for theft after finding the evidence, confession statement, and sentence were proper.
Uganda Vs. Mubinge Steven (Crim. Appeal No. 17 of 2008) [2010] UGHC 107 (19 August 2010)
The High Court allowed the State’s appeal, set aside an acquittal for theft, and convicted the respondent on three counts after finding the evidence proved fraudulent conversion.
Isiko alias Kalidi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 4 of 1993) [1993] UGSC 27 (31 December 1993)
The Supreme Court found that the conviction for theft on the second count was not supported by the particulars of the charge or the evidence adduced. The lower courts failed to properly analyze the evidence and did not give the appellant a fair opportunity to defend himself against the substituted charge of theft. The particulars alleged obtaining money by false pretences, but the evidence did not establish a false pretence or a clear act of conversion constituting theft. The procedure adopted was unfair, as the appellant was convicted of an offence not properly charged or explained. The cour…
Source excerpt
Barton v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1941) [1940] EACA 58 (1 January 1940)
The court upheld a theft conviction based on recent possession of a stolen rifle, but reduced the sentence to a fine after finding the original term excessive.
Padamsi v Asha (Cr. App. 14/1927.) [1927] EACA 41 (1 January 1927)
The Court held that, following Indian authorities, a gratuitous bailee such as Chiku, who received the ornaments for a specific and limited purpose, did not have sufficient possession under section 178 of the Indian Contract Act to make a valid pledge. The pawnbroker appellant, although acting in good faith, did not acquire valid title to the ornaments because Chiku's possession was qualified and for a specific purpose only. The discretion exercised by the Chief Justice under section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code was found to be proper and in accordance with judicial principles. The appe…
Source excerpt
