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
Soro and Others v Republic of Cote D'Ivoire (Application No. 012/2020) [2025] AfCHPR 24 (26 June 2025)
The African Court held it had jurisdiction but declared the application inadmissible because the applicants had not exhausted local remedies.
Niwabine v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 92 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 393 (9 November 2023)
The High Court held that torture was not proved, but found that the applicant’s detention in unknown places violated his personal liberty and freedom of movement.
Tumwesige Francis v Attorney General (Consitutional Petition No. 36 of 2018) [2022] UGCC 5 (2 December 2022)
Sections 168(1)(c) and (d) of the Penal Code Act are unconstitutional because they fail to define criminal offences with sufficient clarity and precision, violating the principle of legality under article 28(12) of the Constitution. The provisions are vague and overly broad, allowing for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and reverse the presumption of innocence by requiring accused persons to prove their innocence. This contravenes the non-derogable right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence under articles 28(3)(a) and 44(c). The impugned sections also facilitate arbitrary dep…
Source excerpt
Dr. Stella Nyanzi v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 247 OF 2017) [2019] UGHCCD 221 (16 December 2019)
The court found that the Respondent's officers violated the Applicant's right to leave Uganda under Article 29(2)(b) of the Constitution by preventing her from boarding a flight without a legitimate purpose, as the police directive had been overtaken by her prior compliance with police summons. The interference was unnecessary and not justified by law. The Applicant's right to human dignity and protection from degrading treatment under Articles 24 and 44(a) was also violated when she was separated from other travelers and embarrassed at the airport. However, the court found no violation of he…
Source excerpt
XYZ v Republic of Benin (Application No. 058/2019) [2019] AfCHPR 97 (2 December 2019)
The African Court dismissed an application for provisional measures against Benin, finding no evidence of urgency, gravity, or irreparable harm to the applicant.
Koutche v Republic of Benin (Application No. 020/2019) [2019] AfCHPR 99 (2 December 2019)
The Court found that most of the Applicant's requests for provisional measures were either moot, overtaken by events, or related to the merits of the case and thus not suitable for provisional relief. However, regarding the cancellation of the Applicant's passport, the Court determined that the evidence showed an ongoing procedure for cancellation, which, if concluded, could irreparably harm the Applicant by depriving him of his main identification and travel document necessary for his residence and livelihood abroad. The Court held that this situation presented sufficient urgency and risk of…
Source excerpt
Penessis v Tanzania (Application No. 013/2015) [2019] AfCHPR 50 (28 November 2019)
The Court held that Robert John Penessis was Tanzanian by birth, found violations of nationality, liberty and movement rights, and ordered release and compensation.
Rashidi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 009/2015) [2019] AfCHPR 10 (28 March 2019)
The Court found that the applicant's arrest and detention in Tanzania, while he possessed a valid police certificate of loss of passport and official embassy correspondence, constituted a violation of his right to residence and freedom of movement under Article 12(1) of the Charter. The anal search performed on the applicant in the presence of his children was deemed cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, violating Article 5 and Article 4 (integrity of person) of the Charter. The seven-year delay in the High Court proceedings was found to be unreasonable and a violation of Article 7(1)(d).…
Source excerpt
Kiiza Besigye v Civil Aviation Authority & Anor (CIVIL SUIT NO 732 OF 2016) [2019] UGHCCD 39 (15 March 2019)
The High Court held that Besigye’s airport arrest violated his rights under Articles 23(3) and 24, awarded UGX 10 million compensation, and found the Attorney General liable.
East African Law Society v A.G. of Burundi and Another (Application 3 of 2014) [2014] EACJ 139 (15 August 2014) (First Instance Division)
The Court determined that the orders sought by the Applicant were final in nature, as they would dispose of the substantive issues raised in the main Reference. Granting such orders at the interlocutory stage would pre-judge the merits of the Reference and leave nothing further to be adjudicated. The Court emphasized that interlocutory orders must be provisional and not dispositive of the entire case. Since the Applicant's prayers pertained to substantive rights such as freedom of movement and the right to practice law, these matters should be addressed in the main Reference, not in an interi…
Source excerpt
