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
Besigye and Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 113 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 16 (11 April 2025)
The High Court denied bail to Kizza Besigye and Obed Lutale, holding that the treason charges, ongoing investigations, and risk of interference outweighed their age and sureties.
Sher Singh Shekhawat v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 43 (22 March 2023)
The court found that while the applicant had provided evidence of a fixed place of abode, legal residency, and presented sureties, the majority of the sureties were either younger than the applicant, lacked close kinship, or were under his direct supervision, rendering them unsubstantial. The applicant's wife, though substantial, was a non-citizen, raising concerns about the risk of absconding. The court held that the case was at an early stage of investigation, and no exceptional circumstances were proved to warrant release prior to the period of mandatory release. The prosecution had not sp…
Source excerpt
Onebe v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 222 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCRD 166 (5 January 2022)
The court found that while the applicant established exceptional circumstances (advanced age and grave illness), he failed to satisfy the court that he would not abscond if released on bail. Evidence showed that the applicant attempted to leave the country despite police instructions, indicating a risk of abscondment. The proximity of the crime scene (his home) and the nature of ongoing forensic investigations increased the likelihood of interference with witnesses and the administration of justice. The court also considered the seriousness of the offence and the public interest in ensuring a…
Source excerpt
His Majesty Omusinga Mumbere v Uganda (Criminal Misc. Application No. 075 of 2016) [2017] UGHCCRD 11 (13 January 2017)
The court held that bail is a constitutional right and must be balanced against public interest and the need to ensure the applicant's attendance at trial. The applicant demonstrated fixed places of abode, substantial sureties, and exceptional circumstances due to age and status. The respondent's fears of interference and absconding were not substantiated by concrete evidence. The court found no proof of previous bail violations or pending charges that would justify denial. The sureties, being prominent and traceable public figures, were deemed substantial despite their allegiance. The applic…
Source excerpt
