Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 03:03 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

4 Oct 2024

Criminal Law [2024] UGCA 285

Uganda v Kamoga

Uganda v Kamoga (Criminal Appeal 646 of 2023) [2024] UGCA 285 (4 October 2024)

Court: Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number: Criminal Appeal 646 of 2023
Judge: Egonda-Ntende, JA, Cheborion-Barishaki, JA, Asa Mugenyi , JA/JCC

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to stay the criminal proceedings because there was no finding, sentence, or order from the magistrate's court to revise, as required by Sections 48 and 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act. The act of the magistrate's court entertaining charges and ordering the respondent to take plea did not constitute an order within the meaning of the law. The Court further held that criminal proceedings should not be stayed merely because of the pendency of related civil suits, as criminal matters serve the public interest and can proceed c…

Source excerpt

Revisionary Jurisdiction
Stay Of Proceedings
Abuse Of Process
Concurrent Civil And Criminal Proceedings
Magistrates Court Powers
Land Dispute Criminalization

Read case analysis

7 Apr 2021

Criminal Law [2021] UGHCCRD 28

Kiwanuka v Uganda (HCT-OO-CR-CN 10 of 2021)

Kiwanuka v Uganda (HCT-OO-CR-CN 10 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCRD 28 (7 April 2021)

Court: HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
Case number: HCT-OO-CR-CN 10 of 2021
Judge: Asiimwe, J

The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred by failing to evaluate the defence of honest claim of right and by relying on hearsay evidence to convict the appellant. The evidence presented was insufficient to prove malicious damage to property beyond reasonable doubt, and the dispute was fundamentally a civil matter regarding land ownership, not a criminal offence. The criminal proceedings were improperly used to resolve a civil dispute, which constitutes an abuse of process. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were quashed and the appellant was acquitted.