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
Sebwalida v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 29 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 298 (19 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application challenging alleged unlawful remand beyond 360 days, finding no documentary evidence to prove the detention period.
Tumwesigye v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 133 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 18 (17 April 2025)
The General Court Martial lacks jurisdiction over the applicant, a civilian, rendering his continued detention unlawful. The applicant has been detained for over 1,500 days without trial, far exceeding the constitutional threshold of 180 days for mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution and Section 15(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act. The High Court possesses inherent powers to intervene in exceptional circumstances to prevent abuse of process and administer substantive justice. The respondent failed to provide any evidence to support its arguments against bail, and the law…
Source excerpt
Kato Henry v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 96 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 21 (5 January 2025)
The High Court granted Kato Henry mandatory bail after finding he had been remanded for over six months without committal, and imposed cash and surety conditions.
Andruale & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 714 (25 July 2024)
The applicants have been on remand for more than 180 days without committal to the High Court for trial, which entitles them to mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution and Paragraph 10 of the Bail Guidelines. The court found that the applicants presented substantial sureties who are close family members and have undertaken to ensure the applicants' attendance in court. Although the applicants did not attach documentary proof of their fixed places of abode, the respondent did not raise this as an objection. The court concluded that the applicants met the requirements for mand…
Source excerpt
Okongu and 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 14 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 557 (14 June 2024)
The court found that the applicants Okongu Sam, Marufa Ali, and Ogwang Francis had been on remand for over a year without committal, exceeding the 180-day threshold for mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution. The applicants demonstrated fixed places of abode within the court's jurisdiction and presented substantial sureties who met the legal requirements. The court exercised its discretion to grant bail, considering the presumption of innocence, the right to liberty, and the need to balance the applicants' rights with the interests of justice. The court imposed reasonable c…
Source excerpt
Bugembe v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 172 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 50 (6 June 2024)
The court found that the applicant had already been committed to the High Court for trial as per the court records (Session Case No. 303 of 2023). Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution provides for mandatory bail only if the accused has been on remand for 180 days before committal. Since the applicant was already committed, he no longer qualified for mandatory bail. The application was therefore dismissed as the constitutional threshold for mandatory bail was not met post-committal.
Source excerpt
Opio v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 184 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 49 (6 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for mandatory bail after finding the applicant had already been committed for trial, so Article 23(6)(c) no longer applied.
Luyima v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 184 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 53 (6 June 2024)
The applicant was committed to the High Court for trial on 7th June 2023, as confirmed by the court record and database. Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution provides for mandatory bail only if the accused has been on remand for 180 days before committal. Since the applicant has already been committed, he does not qualify for mandatory bail. The provisions are mandatory and do not permit release after committal. Therefore, the application for mandatory bail fails and is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Arinaitwe v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 173 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 51 (6 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for mandatory bail because the applicant had already been committed to the High Court for trial.
Kavuma v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 204 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCRD 36 (29 April 2024)
The applicant, charged with aggravated robbery, has been on remand for more than 180 days without committal for trial in the High Court. Rule 10(1) of the Bail Guidelines mandates release on bail under such circumstances, provided reasonable conditions are imposed. The prosecution failed to present evidence of committal or any exceptional circumstances justifying continued detention. The applicant satisfied the requirements for mandatory bail, including presenting substantial sureties and demonstrating a fixed place of abode. The court exercised its discretion in favor of the applicant, impos…
Source excerpt
