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
Uganda Law Society and Isaac Ssemakadde v Tonny Tumukunde and Byamaziiima Joshua (Miscellaneous Application 81 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 73 (17 June 2025)
The High Court granted leave to appeal and stayed proceedings after finding arguable grounds over joinder of the Attorney General as a necessary party.
Wako Robert Salongo v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 480 (4 June 2025)
The High Court at Wakiso denied bail to Wako Robert Salongo in an aggravated robbery and conspiracy case, finding a risk of absconding and no exceptional circumstances.
Afidra Frigona v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0343 OF 2019) [2025] UGCA 161 (23 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly considered both mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing the appellant. The judge noted the seriousness and brutality of the offence, the appellant's callous conduct, and the absence of mitigating factors. The sentencing guidelines were followed, and the sentence imposed fell within the prescribed range for murder. The appellant's status as a first-time offender and his age were acknowledged but did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances. The court held that the sentence of life imprisonment was neither harsh, excessive, nor…
Source excerpt
Kwehayo John Baptist v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCRD 19 (15 May 2025)
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, varied a 10-year wildlife sentence, and imposed a net term of 4 years, 10 months, and 19 days after remand deduction.
Ronald Bwambale T/A Ronald Bwambale Enterprises v DFCU Bank Limited (Civil Appeal No. 286 of 2020) [2025] UGCA 132 (12 May 2025)
Court of Appeal set aside a High Court judgment adopted from a referee’s report, holding the process was not a fair trial under Section 27 of the Judicature Act.
Kikulwe Kalori v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0425 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 121 (8 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge gave undue prominence to aggravating factors and insufficient consideration to mitigating factors, resulting in a manifestly harsh and excessive sentence of 68 years' imprisonment for aggravated defilement. The appellate court emphasized that while sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion, it must be exercised in accordance with established principles, including balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances and ensuring consistency with sentences in similar cases. The court noted that the customary sentencing range for aggravated defile…
Source excerpt
Semanda Robert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2018) [2025] UGCA 125 (5 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a 17 years and 4 months sentence for aggravated defilement, finding no manifest excess or sentencing error.
Mabirizi v Among (Criminal Appeal 3 of 2025) [2025] UGHCACD 10 (25 April 2025)
The High Court held that under section 42 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, a magistrate has the discretion to refer a private complaint to the police for investigation and is not required to entertain applications for additional evidence or restraining orders before determining whether a prima facie offence is disclosed. The law does not provide for the complainant's participation in the verification process or for the right to be heard on the police report before charges are drawn up. The applications filed by the appellant were incompetent and not supported by the law governing private prose…
Source excerpt
Sande v Babumba (Civil Appeal 25 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 227 (25 April 2025)
The High Court struck out this appeal for failure to seek leave to appeal, and noted that recalling witnesses for cross-examination was within the trial court’s discretion.
Nyesiga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 275 of 2021) [2025] UGCA 110 (24 April 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that the sentence of 25 years imprisonment for aggravated defilement was not manifestly excessive or harsh given the gravity of the offence, the tender age of the victim, and the maximum penalty prescribed by law. The trial Judge exercised her discretion judiciously, considering both mitigating and aggravating factors. Although the trial Judge did not explicitly state the final sentence after deducting the remand period, the record and submissions established that the period spent on remand (3 years and 6 months) should be deducted, resulting in a sentence of 21 years…
Source excerpt
