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
Barongo John v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0196 of 2025) [2025] UGCA 187 (13 June 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a murder sentence of 23 years and 11 months, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s sentencing discretion.
Kyaligonza Richard Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 2022) [2025] UGCA 191 (13 June 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant voluntarily entered into the plea bargain agreement, with the sentence of 17 years and 4 months clearly indicated and explained to him. The trial court complied with the mandatory requirements under the Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules, ensuring the appellant understood his rights and the consequences of the agreement. The appellant was legally represented and had the opportunity to object to the sentence but did not do so. The court held that the sentence was legal, formed part of the plea bargain agreement, and there was no miscarriage of justice.…
Source excerpt
Twesigye v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 178 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 148 (20 May 2025)
The Court found that the sentence of 32 ½ years imprisonment for murder was within the established sentencing range and consistent with both mitigating and aggravating factors. The trial judge considered the appellant's guilty plea and time spent on remand, as required by the law at the time, which did not mandate an arithmetic deduction of remand period. The Court held that the sentence was neither harsh nor excessive and that the trial judge did not err in principle or overlook material factors. The subsequent requirement for arithmetic deduction of remand period established in Rwabugande M…
Source excerpt
Opiyo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 573 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 58 (27 February 2025)
The trial judge failed to comply with Article 23(8) of the Constitution by not ascertaining and deducting the period spent on remand before passing sentence. This rendered the sentence unlawful. The appellate court set aside the sentence and, considering mitigating factors such as the appellant's plea of guilty, remorsefulness, youth, and likelihood of reform, as well as the gravity of the offence, imposed a new sentence of 18 years' imprisonment, deducting the 1-year remand period to yield a final sentence of 17 years' imprisonment to run from the date of conviction.
Source excerpt
Kaweesa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 112 of 2014) [2025] UGCA 38 (13 February 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly considered both aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing the appellant to 35 years' imprisonment for murder, a term within the statutory range and consistent with precedent. The judge's approach to the remand period was in line with the Supreme Court's interpretation at the time, which required consideration but not arithmetic deduction. The subsequent change in law (Rwabugande Moses v Uganda) mandating arithmetic deduction does not apply retrospectively. Therefore, there was no error in principle or failure to consider material…
Source excerpt
Oyoo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 363 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 14 (24 January 2025)
The Court of Appeal reduced a murder sentence after finding the trial court failed to consider remand time and several mitigating factors.
Modo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 740 of 2014) [2024] UGCA 282 (4 October 2024)
The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was omnibus, as it did not specify the count to which it related, rendering it illegal. The respondent conceded this point. Applying its powers under section 11 of the Judicature Act, the Court set aside the illegal sentence and resentenced the appellant to 23 years' imprisonment on each of the two counts of murder, deducting the 4 years spent on remand from each sentence. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently from the date of conviction. The court did not find it necessary to consider whether the sentence was har…
Source excerpt
Galabuzi & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 299 of 2017) [2024] UGCA 286 (4 October 2024)
The trial judge failed to ascertain and deduct the period the appellants spent on remand, rendering the sentences illegal and contrary to Article 23(8) of the Constitution and Guideline 15 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The sentencing order was ambiguous and did not reflect the mandatory arithmetical deduction of the remand period. The appellate court set aside the sentences and re-sentenced the appellants, deducting the 4 years and 7 months spent on remand. The first and second appellants were sentenced to 25 years and 5 months, resulting in 20 years and 10 months to be served from the date o…
Source excerpt
Ojok v Uganda (Criminal Application 5 of 2023) [2024] UGSC 39 (28 June 2024)
The Supreme Court dismissed an application for bail pending appeal, finding no exceptional circumstances and no substantial sureties or health basis for release.
Gidudu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 8 of 2017) [2024] UGCA 125 (24 May 2024)
The trial judge took into account and discounted the 5-year remand period when imposing the sentence, as evidenced by the sentencing order. Although the arithmetic deduction was not a strict requirement at the time, the judge's approach complied with the principles later articulated in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda. However, the appellate court found that the trial judge did not consider the appellant's youthful age as a mitigating factor. Given the appellant's acceptance of guilt and remorse, the appellate court exercised its discretion to interfere with the sentence, reducing it from 25 years t…
Source excerpt
