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
Nyarongo v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 1954) [1955] EACA 331 (1 January 1955)
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa held that possible provocation from an insulting remark was not properly considered, quashed murder, and substituted manslaughter.
Hussein and Others v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1956) [1950] EACA 568 (1 January 1950)
The appellate court quashed convictions after holding the pleas were not unequivocal guilty pleas and the trial judge improperly presumed evidence not called.
Athumani v Reginam (Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1956) [1950] EACA 532 (1 January 1950)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge materially misdirected himself by failing to distinguish between the burden of proof in cases of insanity by intoxication and incapacity to form specific intent due to intoxication. The judge wrongly placed the onus on the accused in both scenarios, contrary to established law that only in cases of insanity does the burden shift to the accused, while in cases of incapacity to form intent, the prosecution must prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. Given the evidence of the appellant's advanced intoxication and the lack of motive, the appellate cou…
Source excerpt
Allibai Panju and Sons (Tanganyika) Ltd v Nanji (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1949) [1949] EACA 17 (1 January 1949)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over a mtama sale, holding the parties contracted for white mtama and the appellants could not reopen the case after choosing not to call evidence.
Muhena v Registrar of Titles and Another (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1948) [1949] EACA 19 (1 January 1949)
The Court held that the appellant failed to prove 30 years of adverse possession prior to 26th January, 1923, as required by the Land Registry Ordinance and related statutes. The evidence showed only general permissive occupation, not adverse possession as against the German or British Governments. The Court further held that the Registrar of Titles is statutorily required to independently investigate and decide on applications for first registration, and is not bound by prior admissions or lack of opposition from the Land Officer. The 1931 letter admitting the claim to freehold did not creat…
Source excerpt
Duder v Duder (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1949) [1949] EACA 12 (1 January 1949)
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa dismissed a husband's divorce appeal, holding that he had not proved his wife deserted him without just cause.
Rex v Ayieta (Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 1947) [1948] EACA 64 (1 January 1948)
The court upheld a conviction for practising medicine without a licence, holding that giving injections outside official duties was enough and that proof of gain was unnecessary.
Rex v Jabir (Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 1948) [1948] EACA 88 (1 January 1948)
The East African Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against conviction for unlawful occupation of Crown Land, holding that verbal instructions alone did not make the occupation unlawful.
Singh v Kothari (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1944) [1944] EACA 11 (1 January 1944)
The magistrate erred in non-suiting the plaintiff at the close of his case without requiring the defendant to elect whether to call evidence. The evidence led by the plaintiff was sufficient to disclose a cause of action against the respondent, who acted as principal in the transaction and did not plead the existence of another legal entity liable for the goods. The practice established by case law requires that a magistrate should not rule there is no case to answer unless the party requesting the ruling elects to call no evidence. The respondent's conduct and pleadings did not sufficiently…
Source excerpt
Rex v Lakhani (Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1943) [1943] EACA 35 (1 January 1943)
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in directing the Magistrate to convict the appellant solely on the basis of his failure to call certain witnesses. Section 112(g) of the Evidence Ordinance only permits, but does not require, the court to draw an adverse inference from such failure. The Magistrate's judgment was left vague as to the effect of the evidence, and the High Court should have directed the Magistrate as to the proper onus of proof, leaving him to assess the evidence and draw such inferences as he thought proper. Furthermore, the appellant retained his right of appea…
Source excerpt
