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
Kuwange v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 199 of 2016) [2024] UGCA 298 (15 October 2024)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a sentence appeal arising from a murder plea bargain, holding that the 20-year term was lawful, the mitigation was considered, and remand time was deducted.
Namwendi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 244 of 2015) [2024] UGCA 82 (8 April 2024)
The Court of Appeal held that Article 23(8) of the Constitution requires mandatory deduction of the period spent on remand from any sentence of imprisonment. The plea bargain agreement does not waive this constitutional right. Although the trial judge sentenced the appellant before the Supreme Court's decision in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda, the appeal was still pending, and the rule in Attorney General v Susan Kigula and 417 Others mandates that new constitutional interpretation applies to unresolved cases. Therefore, the Rwabugande rule on arithmetic deduction of remand time must be applied.…
Source excerpt
Mutungi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 207 of 2017) [2024] UGCA 74 (27 March 2024)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal appeal, holding that the grounds were vague and defective under Rule 66(2) and that the plea bargain limited the available grounds of challenge.
Lukwavu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 117 of 2019) [2024] UGCA 10 (23 January 2024)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge imposed an illegal sentence by failing to deduct the period the appellant spent on remand, as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution and established Supreme Court precedent. The court held that this omission rendered the sentence unlawful, regardless of the plea bargain agreement. However, the court also determined that the plea bargain agreement itself remained valid and binding, as the appellant entered into it voluntarily and with full awareness of its consequences. The court set aside the original sentence, deducted the remand period o…
Source excerpt
Mukasa alias Madu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 285 of 2021) [2023] UGCA 330 (9 November 2023)
The Court of Appeal set aside a 10-year plea-bargained sentence for aggravated robbery because remand time was not deducted, and substituted 8 years, 1 month, 12 days.
Mwesigwa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 241 of 2019) [2023] UGCA 198 (7 August 2023)
The Court of Appeal found that the procedure for taking the plea was properly followed: the indictment and facts were read and explained to the appellant in Luganda, and he confirmed their correctness. The plea was unequivocal, and the appellant was represented by counsel throughout. The plea bargain agreement was validly entered into, and there is no legal requirement regarding the location of signing. The inconsistencies in the dates on the charge sheet and indictment were minor and did not affect the substance of the case or occasion a miscarriage of justice. The appellant admitted all ess…
Source excerpt
Kiwanuka Eriya v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 708 of 2014) [2023] UGCA 401 (4 August 2023)
The trial judge erred by imposing consecutive sentences totaling 27 years and 4 months, contrary to the plea bargain agreement which stipulated 20 years on each count to run concurrently and inclusive of the remand period. The Plea Bargain Rules require that the court either accept the agreement or reject it for miscarriage of justice, but do not permit the imposition of a harsher sentence than agreed. The judge did not record reasons for rejecting the agreement nor inform the parties, rendering the sentence illegal. The appellate court set aside the sentence and imposed 18 years and 8 months…
Source excerpt
Angiya v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 241 of 2016) [2023] UGCA 193 (1 August 2023)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to deduct the period the appellant spent on remand from the sentence, contrary to Article 23(8) of the Constitution and established Supreme Court authority. The Court held that 'taking into account' the remand period requires an arithmetical deduction, not merely a general consideration. Since the trial judge did not comply with this requirement, the sentence was illegal. The Court set aside the original sentence and imposed a fresh sentence of 12 years' imprisonment, deducting the 4 years and 2 months spent on remand, resulting in a sente…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Ahimbisibwe (Revision Cause 1 of 2023) [2023] UGHCACD 11 (17 July 2023)
The High Court dismissed a revision application seeking forfeiture of uncustomed cigarettes, holding the plea bargain and conviction were limited to customs offences.
Oroma and Another v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 192 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCRD 61 (13 June 2023)
The court held that while Section 106(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act provides that sentences commence from the date they are pronounced, this is subject to other provisions of the Act. Section 122(1) specifically provides that where a person is convicted and sentenced in a subsequent case before the expiration of a previous sentence, the sentences are to run consecutively unless the court directs otherwise. In this case, the applicants were convicted and sentenced in two separate and distinct trials, with no evidence that the offences arose from the same transaction or series of acts. The…
Source excerpt
