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 v Rukasurwa alias Sebataka and 8 Others (Criminal Session Case 207 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 114 (25 January 2025)
The High Court convicted A2, A4, and A7 of aggravated robbery, arson, and malicious damage, but acquitted them of assault and unlawful wounding.
Uganda v Byabagambi alias Buganda (Criminal Revision 2 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 1035 (30 October 2024)
The High Court held that the existence of a civil suit based on the same facts as a criminal case does not justify the stay of criminal proceedings. Criminal and civil cases serve different purposes and can proceed concurrently. Criminal proceedings address offenses against the state and public order, while civil cases resolve private disputes. The law does not require criminal matters to be stayed pending the outcome of civil suits unless exceptional circumstances affecting the right to a fair hearing are demonstrated, which were not present in this case. The trial magistrate's order staying…
Source excerpt
Tumwesige and Another v Bahemuka Temuteo (Civil Appeal 43 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1163 (25 October 2024)
The High Court found that the trial Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and correctly relied on the Respondent's purchase agreement (P. Exh.1) as proof of ownership of the disputed land. The Appellants failed to plead or prove fraud, and their claims regarding their father's acquisition and occupation of the land were unsupported by credible evidence. The court noted that the Appellants themselves acknowledged the existence of a clear boundary (barbed wire) separating the Respondent's land from theirs. The alleged will did not confer any interest in the suit land to the Appellants. Alt…
Source excerpt
Okui v Nsubuga and Another (Civil Suit 469 of 2023) [2024] UGHCLD 260 (16 October 2024)
The High Court found a fraudulent land transfer, held the 1st defendant a trespasser, and ordered cancellation of the title, damages, injunctions, and costs.
Kiriba & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 22 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 789 (30 August 2024)
The High Court at Mukono granted the applicants bail pending appeal after conviction, finding fixed residences, substantial sureties, and risk of the appeal becoming nugatory.
Uganda v Nandawula (Criminal Appeal 71 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCRD 44 (14 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed the prosecution’s appeal and upheld an acquittal for criminal trespass, housebreaking, and malicious damage, finding a bona fide claim of right.
Komakech v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 29 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 35 (16 April 2024)
The High Court granted Komakech Robert bail after finding he had spent more than 60 days on remand without trial in a case triable by the High Court.
Oryem v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 74 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 104 (21 March 2024)
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any material change in circumstances since the previous bail application was dismissed. The grounds advanced in the present application were substantially the same as those previously considered and rejected. The seriousness of the offences, the lack of proof of exceptional circumstances, and the risk of absconding remain unchanged. The court found that, in the absence of new facts or a substantial change in the situation, entertaining a successive bail application would amount to an impermissible review of the earlier decision, which is…
Source excerpt
Obita v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 68 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 75 (1 March 2024)
The High Court at Gulu granted bail to a 62-year-old applicant charged with aggravated robbery and malicious damage to property, citing advanced age and substantial sureties.
Sebagula Aron v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 19 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCRD 7 (23 January 2024)
The appellate court found that the trial magistrate properly convicted the appellant for criminal trespass based on direct and circumstantial evidence placing him at the scene and proving intentional entry onto land in possession of another. However, the conviction for malicious damage to property was overturned due to reliance on inadmissible hearsay and lack of direct evidence of destruction. Convictions for forgery and uttering a false document were quashed because the trial magistrate failed to follow mandatory procedures after amending the charge sheet, including informing the accused of…
Source excerpt
