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
Mukasa & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 4 of 2023) [2025] UGCA 32 (13 February 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that the appellants’ sentences were illegal because time spent on remand was not deducted, set aside the sentence, and ordered immediate release.
Namuyanja & 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Revision 4 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCRD 2 (30 January 2025)
The High Court quashed a lower-court plea bargain, finding major procedural defects, lack of interpretation, and a violation of the applicants’ fair-hearing rights.
Ahimbisibwe Kateregga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0439 of 2017) [2024] UGCA 341 (12 December 2024)
The Court of Appeal set aside a 27-year murder sentence imposed contrary to a plea bargain and substituted the agreed seven-year term, less remand time.
Ahimbisibwe v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 439 of 2017) [2024] UGCA 331 (12 December 2024)
The trial judge erred by imposing a sentence of 27 years' imprisonment contrary to the plea bargain agreement, without formally rejecting the agreement as required by law. The Plea Bargain Rules prohibit the substitution of a judge-imposed sentence for the agreed sentence unless the agreement is rejected for causing a miscarriage of justice. The judge's reasons for enhancing the sentence did not amount to such a finding. The only lawful course was to either accept the agreement or reject it and proceed to trial. By imposing his own sentence, the judge acted illegally. The appellate court set…
Source excerpt
Ahimbisibwe Kateregga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0439 of 2017) [2024] UGCA 342 (12 December 2024)
The trial judge erred by imposing a sentence of 27 years' imprisonment contrary to the plea bargain agreement for 7 years. The Plea Bargain Rules prohibit the court from imposing a sentence more severe than that agreed upon in the plea bargain. If the judge found the agreed sentence inadequate, the only lawful course was to reject the agreement and order a full trial, not to substitute his own sentence. The objectives of plea bargaining include efficiency, reduction of backlog, and providing certainty to the accused. By disregarding the agreement, the trial judge imposed an illegal sentence.…
Source excerpt
Picha v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 330 of 2010) [2024] UGCA 327 (27 November 2024)
The Court of Appeal allowed a sentence appeal, held that no-remission imprisonment was illegal, and resentenced the appellant after deducting remand time.
Karatungi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 108 of 2016) [2024] UGCA 296 (16 October 2024)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to comply with mandatory constitutional and statutory provisions by not deducting the remand period from the sentence and not considering mitigating factors. Article 23(8) of the Constitution and Section 15(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines require the period spent on remand to be arithmetically deducted from the sentence. The absence of consideration for mitigating factors such as the Appellant's age, plea of guilty, and first-offender status rendered the sentence illegal. The appellate court, guided by parity and consistency in sentencing…
Source excerpt
Atwine v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 53 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 42 (5 June 2024)
The High Court set aside a conviction under a repealed provision, then reduced a possession sentence after deducting remand time.
Lukwavu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 117 of 2019) [2024] UGCA 10 (23 January 2024)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge imposed an illegal sentence by failing to deduct the period the appellant spent on remand, as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution and established Supreme Court precedent. The court held that this omission rendered the sentence unlawful, regardless of the plea bargain agreement. However, the court also determined that the plea bargain agreement itself remained valid and binding, as the appellant entered into it voluntarily and with full awareness of its consequences. The court set aside the original sentence, deducted the remand period o…
Source excerpt
Turamye v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 93 of 2020) [2023] UGCA 337 (28 November 2023)
The failure of the trial judge to deduct the period spent on remand from the sentence imposed on the appellant contravened Article 23(8) of the Constitution and established Supreme Court authority, rendering the sentence illegal. The Court of Appeal, exercising its powers under Section 11 of the Judicature Act, set aside the illegal sentence and re-sentenced the appellant to 23 years, 5 months, and 11 days' imprisonment for each count of murder, after deducting the remand period. Both sentences are to run concurrently from the date of conviction. Sentences imposed under Plea Bargain Agreement…
Source excerpt
