Uganda Case Law

Arvind Patel v Uganda

Arvind Patel v Uganda [2003] UGSC 35 (26 October 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

The Supreme Court held that section 142(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act does not restrict the number of magistrates who may preside over a trial, provided the accused is not prejudiced and has the opportunity to request witnesses to be recalled. The interpretation in Eustance v Rep. (1970) EA 393 was found to be too narrow and not applicable to Ugandan law. The Court further held that the plea of guilty by a co-accused should not be taken as evidence against another accused in a conspiracy charge, as criminal responsibility is personal. However, in this case, the trial magistrate did not rel…

Source excerpt

• Conspiracy To Murder
• Magistrates Courts Act Interpretation
• Joint Trial Procedure
• Plea Of Guilty Effect
• Burden Of Proof
• Prejudice And Misdirection

Uganda v Ndinywa (Crim.Rev.No.205 of 1976)

Uganda v Ndinywa (Crim.Rev.No.205 of 1976) [1977] UGHCCRD 2 (28 January 1977)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Crim.Rev.No.205 of 1976

Judge

Ssekandi, J

The High Court quashed a conviction where police used a possession-of-stolen-property charge improperly and the magistrate convicted the accused of uncharged theft.

• Improper Arrest
• Charge Amendment
• Conviction On Wrong Offence
• Possession Of Stolen Property
• Plea And Conviction
• Magistrates Courts Act Interpretation