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
Malakoni v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1955) [1955] EACA 350 (1 January 1955)
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge misdirected himself on the burden of proof and drunkenness. Murder was quashed and manslaughter substituted.
Kweyu v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 237 of. 1956) [1950] EACA 593 (1 January 1950)
The conviction for murder was quashed and substituted with manslaughter because the appellant, while acting under grave and sudden provocation from Maluba, mistakenly killed Matias. The trial Judge misdirected himself by focusing on the appellant's state of mind after the killing of Matias, rather than at the moment of the act. The doctrines of transferred malice and transferred provocation were applicable, and the evidence supported that the appellant's intent and provocation were directed at Maluba, not Matias. The appellant's mistaken identity in the darkness and the severe provocation jus…
Source excerpt
Rex v Manyakutama (Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1948) [1948] EACA 29 (1 January 1948)
The court held that the appellant's actions did not result from sudden provocation, as he had time to reflect on his wife's confession before assaulting her. The repetition of the confession and the delay between the initial disclosure and the assault negated the element of suddenness required for provocation under section 202 of the Tanganyika Penal Code. Furthermore, the severity and location of the blows administered by the appellant demonstrated an intention to inflict grievous harm, satisfying the mens rea for murder. The appellant's claim of lack of intent to seriously injure was reject…
Source excerpt
Rex v Tubere (Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1945) [1945] EACA 16 (1 January 1945)
The Court of Appeal held that a serious assault with a heavy stick could prove an intention to cause grievous harm and dismissed the murder appeal.
Rex v Francesco (Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 1945) [1945] EACA 31 (1 January 1945)
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa upheld a murder conviction, holding that a 12-month-old grievance was not legal provocation and that intent to cause grievous harm could amount to malice aforethought.
Rex v Amri (Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1942) [1943] EACA 7 (1 January 1943)
The Court held that the accused's intoxication did not negate his capacity to form the requisite intent for murder, particularly given the deliberate use of a knife and the infliction of 18 wounds. The Court further held that the refusal of sexual intercourse by the deceased did not amount to legal provocation under the law. The extra judicial confession was found to be voluntary and truthful. Accordingly, the conviction for murder was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
Rex v Keisheimeiza (Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1940) [1940] EACA 23 (1 January 1940)
The Court of Appeal upheld a murder conviction based largely on a voluntary confession, finding it was not categorically retracted and needed no corroboration.
Rex v Fumbirwa and Another (Cr.A. Nos. 148 and 149 of 1936.) [1936] EACA 114 (1 January 1936)
The Court held that, under Ugandan law, manslaughter is constituted by an unlawful act or omission causing death, regardless of intention to cause death. The appellants' act of hanging the woman, even if done under the honest and reasonable belief that she was already dead, was an unlawful act because it was done with the intent to fabricate evidence and mislead a tribunal, as contemplated by section 84 of the Penal Code. The trial judge was justified in inferring such intent from the circumstances. The Indian law on culpable homicide, which requires intention, was found inapplicable. The Cou…
Source excerpt
Rex v Ndolo (Criminal Appeal 14/1935.) [1935] EACA 80 (1 January 1935)
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa upheld a murder conviction, holding that drunkenness did not rebut the presumption of murder or negate intent on the facts.
Rex v Chumachienda (Criminal Appeal 172/1934) [1935] EACA 73 (1 January 1935)
The court held that the evidence supported the conviction for murder and that the appellant's drunkenness did not negate the specific intent required for the offence. The court found no reasonable doubt as to the appellant's capacity to form intent at the time of the assault. The procedural question raised was resolved by directing that the precedent in Rex v. Murray should be followed for confirmation of convictions, rather than the approach in Rex v. Saiti. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction for murder was upheld.
Source excerpt
