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 Vs Kisembo & 2 Ors (Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2015) [2019] UGCA 181 (8 July 2019)
The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal of three district officials, finding no proof they caused financial loss or abused office in the handling of CDD funds.
Mugisha Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2011) [2019] UGCA 149 (17 June 2019)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in several respects: (1) by calling a court witness after both prosecution and defence had closed their cases and allowing the prosecution to lead the witness, which amounted to reopening the prosecution case and prejudiced the appellant; (2) by convicting the appellant for neglect of duty based on the actions of a junior officer, thereby improperly applying vicarious liability and failing to establish the required mens rea for criminal liability; (3) by relying on the uncorroborated and inconsistent testimony of an accomplice (PW1), contra…
Source excerpt
Okello v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.035 of 2015) [2015] UGHCCRD 47 (30 November 2015)
The appellant, as the acting district engineer and core works supervisor, certified completion and payment for bridge works that were incomplete and shoddy, contrary to contract specifications and technical standards. His certification was relied upon by other officials to approve payment, resulting in financial loss to Amuru District Local Government. The evidence demonstrated that the appellant acted arbitrarily, abused his office, and neglected his supervisory duties. The defects in the bridge were identified within the defect liability period, and the appellant failed to ensure rectificat…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Dr.Richard Ndyomugyenyi & 2 oers (CR.SC 003 OF 2010) (CR.SC 003 OF 2010) [2010] UGHC 49 (31 August 2010)
The High Court of Uganda acquitted three Ministry of Health officials of corruption over anti-malaria drug management, holding the prosecution failed to prove mens rea.
Rex v Chebundo and Another (Revision Cases Nos. 214 and 215 of 1942) [1942] EACA 90 (1 January 1942)
The court set aside compensation orders against two resident labourers, holding that section 27(2)(a) did not apply and that the award lacked evidential support.
Crown v Waibunya (Revision Case 60/1927.) [1927] EACJ 3 (1 January 1927)
A criminal revision set aside a conviction under the Employment of Natives Ordinance because the charge lacked particulars, the evidence was insufficient, and the sentence unlawfully combined imprisonment with a fine.
Crown through Luxford v Waibunya wa Rori (Revision Case No. 60 of 1927) [1927] EACA 23 (1 January 1927)
Revision of a conviction under section 48(2) of the Employment of Natives Ordinance was allowed because the charge lacked particulars and the sentence was unlawful.
