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
Magayi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 469 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 76 (12 March 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a 30-year murder sentence, finding the trial court had considered remand time and that the term was not manifestly excessive.
Barahuka v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 519 of 2015) [2024] UGCA 255 (4 September 2024)
The Court of Appeal upheld a conviction for aggravated robbery, holding that a toy gun is an imitation weapon under the Penal Code and confirming an 18-year sentence.
Birungi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 194 of 2014) [2024] UGCA 251 (3 September 2024)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not arithmetically deduct the period the appellant spent on remand from the sentence, as required by the Supreme Court's decision in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda and Article 23(8) of the Constitution. The court held that, following the principle of precedent and the clarification in Nashimolo Paul Kibolo v Uganda, the law now requires an arithmetic deduction of the remand period. The trial judge's general reference to considering the remand period was insufficient. Consequently, the sentence was set aside, and the appellant was resentenced to 16…
Source excerpt
Agwata & 5 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 86 of 2016) [2024] UGCA 108 (15 May 2024)
The Court of Appeal partly allowed a murder sentence appeal, finding the original 45-year term harsh and excessive, and substituted lower terms after reviewing mitigation.
Kakurucu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 2014) [2022] UGCA 91 (23 March 2022)
The Court of Appeal reduced a murder sentence from 60 years to 23 years, finding the original term harsh and excessive and requiring deduction of remand time.
Tumuramye aka Kyakabale and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 2015) [2022] UGCA 68 (3 March 2022)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to demonstrate how the 4 years and 1 month spent by the appellants in pre-trial detention was specifically credited in the sentence, as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution and clarified by the Supreme Court in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda. The mere statement that the remand period was considered was insufficient without an explicit deduction. This omission rendered the sentence illegal. The court set aside the original sentence and, after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, imposed a fresh sentence of 30 years' impri…
Source excerpt
Ndagano and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 203 of 2012; Criminal Appeal 5 of 2018) [2020] UGCA 2137 (18 February 2020)
The Court of Appeal found the trial court failed to deduct the full remand period from murder sentences, set aside the original terms, and substituted reduced sentences.
Ochen v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 2014) [2019] UGCA 2036 (9 December 2019)
Court of Appeal held the 15-year sentence was illegal because the trial judge failed to deduct 6 months spent on remand, and substituted 16 years 6 months.
Ading Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 769 of 2014) [2019] UGCA 225 (30 July 2019)
The sentence imposed by the High Court was illegal as it failed to comply with Article 23(8) of the Constitution, which mandates that any period spent in lawful custody prior to conviction must be deducted from the term of imprisonment. The trial judge erroneously included post-conviction custody in the deduction, contrary to constitutional and Supreme Court guidance. The Court of Appeal set aside the sentence and, considering aggravating and mitigating factors, imposed a sentence of 30 years imprisonment for both counts, deducting the pre-conviction remand period of 2 years, 9 months, and 21…
Source excerpt
Ojok Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0191 of 2011) [2018] UGCA 111 (28 November 2018)
The Court of Appeal set aside a 25-year omnibus sentence for two manslaughter counts and substituted 8 years on each count, consecutive, after holding the trial court erred in principle.
