Uganda Case Law

Mutambi Jackson v Uganda

Mutambi Jackson v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2016) [2025] UGCA 243 (1 July 2025)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2016

Judge

Kazibwe, JA, Nakachwa, JA/JCC, Kakooza Sabiiti, JA/ JCC

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence of PW3 and PW5, who testified that Katungi (A1) stated he gave the deceased's head to the appellant, was admissible under section 59(b) of the Evidence Act and not hearsay. However, this evidence required corroboration, which was provided by PW10, the investigating officer, who testified that the appellant led police to the swamp where he claimed to have disposed of the head. The appellant's conduct in leading police to the location was considered incriminating and indicative of guilt. The court held that the prosecution proved the appellant's parti…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Hearsay Evidence
• Alibi
• Sentencing Principles
• Common Intention
• Remand Deduction

Uganda v Cheptoek Kevin

Uganda v Cheptoek Kevin (Criminal Session 307 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 451 (24 June 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Session 307 of 2021

Judge

Lubega, J

High Court acquitted Cheptoek Kevin of rape after finding the prosecution proved intercourse and lack of consent, but not his identity as the perpetrator.

• Rape
• Burden Of Proof
• Identification Evidence
• Hearsay Evidence
• Standard Of Proof
• Corroboration

Tuhaise v Uganda

Tuhaise v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 5 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1155 (18 October 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 5 of 2023

Judge

Byaruhanga Rugyema, J

The High Court found that the trial Magistrate properly evaluated the prosecution evidence, which was consistent and corroborated by multiple witnesses, including the victim and an eyewitness. The court held that the evidence of Tuhaise Wilson (PW4) was direct and not hearsay, and that the prosecution had sufficiently placed the appellant at the scene of the crime. The court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding inconsistencies and the absence of the spanner as an exhibit, finding these did not undermine the prosecution case. On sentencing, the court held that while the sentence of 3 y…

Source excerpt

• Attempted Murder
• Evaluation Of Evidence
• Hearsay Evidence
• Sentencing Principles

Uganda v Nabukenya and Others (HCT-17-CR-SC-0124-2024)

Uganda v Nabukenya and Others (HCT-17-CR-SC-0124-2024) [2024] UGHC 1247 (28 August 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-17-CR-SC-0124-2024

Judge

Wolayo, J

The High Court found the death of Vicent Kato was unlawfully caused, but acquitted the accused because participation and malice aforethought were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

• Murder
• Malice Aforethought
• Standard Of Proof
• Participation In Crime
• Hearsay Evidence
• Malice-aforethought

Akandwanaho v Uganda

Akandwanaho v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 143 of 2021) [2024] UGCA 215 (16 August 2024)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 143 of 2021

Judge

Buteera, DCJ, Gashirabake, JA, Kihika, JA /JCC

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in the appointment or handling of assessors, as the appellant had legal representation and did not object, and no prejudice was occasioned. The evidence regarding the appellant's residence and disappearance after the crime was not materially contradictory and provided corroborative circumstantial evidence supporting the conviction. The 'last seen doctrine' was applicable, and the appellant's denial and alibi were rebutted by credible witness testimony. However, the trial judge misdirected himself by relying on hearsay evidence from PW…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Last Seen Doctrine
• Hearsay Evidence
• Sentencing Guidelines

Uganda v Bwambale & 2 Others

Uganda v Bwambale & 2 Others (Criminal Session Case 17 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 684 (22 July 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Session Case 17 of 2024

Judge

David S.L. Makumbi, J

The court found that while the prosecution proved the death, its unlawful nature, and malice aforethought, it failed to adduce sufficient evidence linking any of the accused to the act of murder. For A1, the evidence consisted mainly of prior threats and a single, uncorroborated identification at night under questionable conditions, which the court found unsafe to rely on without supporting evidence. For A2, the only evidence was hearsay regarding a conspiracy, which is inadmissible, and no direct witness testified to his involvement. For A3, mere recent possession of the deceased's phone, wi…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Prima Facie Case
• Identification Evidence
• Hearsay Evidence
• Burden Of Proof

Kasubo v Uganda

Kasubo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 155 of 2010) [2024] UGCA 115 (16 May 2024)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 155 of 2010

Judge

Kiryabwire, JA, Muzamiru, JA, Monica K. Mugenyi, JA

The Court of Appeal upheld a conviction for kidnap with intent to murder, finding sufficient corroborated circumstantial evidence and no sentencing error.

• Circumstantial Evidence
• Kidnap With Intent To Murder
• Remand Period Deduction
• Sentencing Principles
• Hearsay Evidence
• Corroboration

Uganda v Kawanguzi Isma, Balyejusa Musa, Muganza Jamali, and Mukisa John

Uganda v Kawanguzi Isma, Balyejusa Musa, Muganza Jamali, and Mukisa John (Criminal Session 129 of 2021) [2023] UGHC 244 (28 September 2023)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Session 129 of 2021

Judge

Bukirwa, J

The court found that the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove any of the essential ingredients of aggravated robbery. The complainant did not testify, and the evidence presented by police officers was hearsay and uncorroborated. The medical evidence did not establish the use of a deadly weapon, and no weapon was exhibited. There was no direct evidence placing the accused at the scene or proving their participation. In the absence of admissible and credible evidence, the court held that no prima facie case had been made out against the accused persons. Accordingly, the acc…

Source excerpt

• Aggravated Robbery
• Burden Of Proof
• Hearsay Evidence
• Identification Evidence

Turyakira v Uganda

Turyakira v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 180 of 2013) [2023] UGCA 240 (4 September 2023)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal 180 of 2013

Judge

Kibeedi Mutangula, JA, Gashirabake, JA, Luswata, JA

The Court of Appeal set aside a murder conviction, holding the prosecution’s case depended on weak circumstantial and inadmissible hearsay evidence.

• Murder
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Hearsay Evidence
• Dying Declaration
• Evaluation Of Evidence
• Contradictions In Testimony

Uganda v Kilama

Uganda v Kilama (Criminal Session Case 261 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCRD 46 (21 August 2023)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Session Case 261 of 2022

Judge

Okello, J

The High Court found no prima facie case of aggravated defilement, holding that the victim’s age and the accused’s participation were not proved.

• Aggravated Defilement
• Proof Of Age
• Prima Facie Case
• Participation Of Accused
• Hearsay Evidence
• Burden Of Proof