Uganda Case Law

Uganda v Awino Everline

Uganda v Awino Everline (Criminal Session 8 of 2015) [2023] UGHC 247 (3 November 2023)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Session 8 of 2015

Judge

Gaswaga, J

The court found that the prosecution failed to adduce any direct evidence linking the accused to the deaths of Amongi Susan Betty and Aweli Prisca. The circumstantial evidence presented, including alleged threats, a land dispute, and a purported dying declaration, was weak, inconsistent, and unreliable. Witness testimony was discredited during cross-examination, and contradictions undermined the prosecution's case. The court held that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof. As the essential ingredient of participation was not proved, the accused could not be put to her defence…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• No Case To Answer
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Burden Of Proof

Uganda v Kabasomi & Ors (HCT-01-CR-SC-0193 OF 2016.)

Uganda v Kabasomi & Ors (HCT-01-CR-SC-0193 OF 2016.) [2018] UGHCCRD 134 (4 May 2018)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT-01-CR-SC-0193 OF 2016.

Judge

Masalu Musene, J

The High Court of Uganda at Fort Portal held that the prosecution had not proved participation in a murder charge and acquitted all three accused at no-case-to-answer stage.

• Murder
• Standard Of Proof
• No Case To Answer
• Aiding And Abetting
• Evidentiary Requirements
• No-case-to-answer

Namujju v Uganda

Namujju v Uganda (Criminal Revision Cause No. 008 of 2016) [2017] UGHCCRD 110 (30 March 2017)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Revision Cause No. 008 of 2016

Judge

Zeija, J

The High Court found no legal basis under Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code to intervene in the interlocutory finding of the trial magistrate that the applicant had a case to answer. The court reaffirmed that a prima facie case does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt at this stage, and the applicant's concerns regarding the sufficiency of evidence and burden of proof are matters for the defence and, if necessary, appeal after final judgment. The authorities cited by the respondent were preferred, and the applicant's reliance on Christopher Nsereko v Uganda was found to be mispl…

Source excerpt

• No Case To Answer
• Revision Jurisdiction
• Prima Facie Case
• Burden Of Proof
• Interlocutory Orders

Uganda v Twijukye

Uganda v Twijukye (Criminal Session Case No. 97 of 2011) [2011] UGHC 123 (23 August 2011)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Session Case No. 97 of 2011

Judge

Kwesiga, J

The High Court at Kabale held that the prosecution had not made out a prima facie case for aggravated robbery and acquitted Twijukye Medard.

• Aggravated Robbery
• Elements Of Offence
• Identification Evidence
• No Case To Answer
• Aggravated-robbery
• No-case-to-answer

Uganda v Ntende & Ors (HCT-04-CR-SC-0170-2002)

Uganda v Ntende & Ors (HCT-04-CR-SC-0170-2002) [2003] UGHCCRD 5 (27 February 2003)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT-04-CR-SC-0170-2002

Judge

Rugadya, J

The High Court held that the prosecution evidence was too unreliable to require the accused to defend themselves and entered findings of not guilty.

• No Case To Answer
• Robbery
• Unlawful Possession Of Firearms
• Government Stores
• Burden Of Proof
• No-case-to-answer

Uganda v Omoding Moses (Crim. Case No.57 of 2000)

Uganda v Omoding Moses (Crim. Case No.57 of 2000) [2002] UGHC 113 (20 June 2002)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Crim. Case No.57 of 2000

The High Court acquitted Omoding Moses of defilement after the prosecution called no witnesses and failed to establish a prima facie case.

• Defilement
• No Case To Answer
• Burden Of Proof
• Criminal-law
• No-case-to-answer
• Prima-facie-case

uganda v no. 40709 sgt Mukerege and another

uganda v no. 40709 sgt Mukerege and another (Criminal Session Case 346 of 1991) [1993] UGHC 73 (7 December 1993)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Session Case 346 of 1991

Judge

Kireju, J

The High Court of Uganda upheld a no case to answer submission and acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution evidence did not link him to murder, robbery, or attempted murder.

• Murder
• Robbery
• Attempted Murder
• No Case To Answer
• Evidentiary Requirements
• No-case-to-answer

Johnston v Rex

Johnston v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 1951) [1951] EACA 278 (1 January 1951)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 1951

Judge

Lockhart-Smith, Ag. VP, Miles, Ag. J. (Tanganyika), Worley, P

The Court held that no appeal lay from a High Court decision on a case stated under the Criminal Procedure Code, except for genuine jurisdictional objections.

• No Case To Answer
• Case Stated Procedure
• Finality Of Orders
• Jurisdiction Of Appellate Courts
• Criminal-procedure
• Case-stated

Hon. The Attorney General v Bashir and Another

Hon. The Attorney General v Bashir and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 1948 (Case Stated)) [1948] EACA 87 (1 January 1948)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 1948 (Case Stated)

Judge

Bourke J, Modera J

The court held a stated case was defective because it did not properly set out the legal question or the prosecution evidence needed to test a no-case-to-answer ruling.

• No Case To Answer
• Case Stated Procedure
• Prima Facie Case
• Magistrate Rulings
• Appellate Review
• No-case-to-answer

Kaihara and Others v Rex (Cr.A. 59/1934 and 60/1934)

Kaihara and Others v Rex (Cr.A. 59/1934 and 60/1934) [1937] EACA 160 (1 January 1937)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Cr.A. 59/1934 and 60/1934

Judge

Abrahams CJ, Ag P (Uganda), Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya), Webb, J

The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa held that deciding whether there is a case to answer is for the trial court, and dismissed the murder appeals.

• Murder
• Criminal Procedure
• No Case To Answer
• Provocation
• Trial Process
• Criminal-procedure