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
Barahuka v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 519 of 2015) [2024] UGCA 255 (4 September 2024)
The Court of Appeal upheld a conviction for aggravated robbery, holding that a toy gun is an imitation weapon under the Penal Code and confirming an 18-year sentence.
Vickery TA v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 1 of 1994) [1994] UGHC 109 (11 March 1994)
The High Court quashed a conviction for unlawful use of a motor vehicle, holding that the charge was defective and the plea equivocal, making the proceedings a nullity.
Olweny v Uganda (Criminal Revision 27 of 1990) [1991] UGHC 59 (3 May 1991)
The High Court quashed a traffic conviction after finding the plea equivocal, the facts insufficient, the default sentence illegal, and mitigation not allowed.
Mohamed v Uganda (Criminal Revision 31 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 56 (3 May 1991)
The High Court upheld convictions on three traffic counts after finding the vague pleas were cured by admitted facts, but quashed count 4 and corrected illegal default sentences.
Okeny & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Revision 28 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 58 (3 May 1991)
The conviction of Okeny Justine was quashed because the plea on which it was based was equivocal and did not admit all the essential ingredients of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The charge was also found to be bad for duplicity, as it alleged assault on multiple persons in a single count, contrary to statutory requirements. Furthermore, the default sentence of one month imprisonment for non-payment of a fine of Shs. 2000/= was illegal, as the law prescribes a maximum of seven days imprisonment for such a fine. As a result, both the conviction and sentence were set asi…
Source excerpt
Okeny & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Revision 28 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 64 (3 May 1991)
The court found that the plea of guilty entered by the accused was equivocal as it did not admit all the essential ingredients of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The accused admitted to assault but not to causing actual bodily harm, making the conviction unsound in law. Furthermore, the charge was bad for duplicity as it alleged assault on multiple persons in a single count, contrary to statutory requirements that each offence be charged separately. The default sentence of one month imprisonment for non-payment of a fine of Shs. 2000/= was also illegal, as the law presc…
Source excerpt
Abdul v Uganda (Criminal Revision 25 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 53 (3 April 1991)
The court found that the pleas of guilty entered in counts 1 and 3 were equivocal and not cured by the narrated facts, which failed to disclose the commission of the offences charged. The conviction in count 1 was unsupported by facts showing the vehicle was unregistered, and count 3 lacked evidence that the passengers were paid, as required by the charge. Additionally, the wrong statutory section was cited in count 3, but this did not cause injustice due to clear particulars. All sentences imposed exceeded statutory limits and were therefore illegal. Only the conviction in count 2 was upheld…
Source excerpt
Masanya v Regina (Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1952) [1952] EACA 322 (1 January 1952)
The court quashed a conviction for failing to report as an unemployed person because the prosecution did not prove the accused was under 45, a statutory element.
Karia v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 1950) [1950] EACA 86 (1 January 1950)
The appeal was allowed because the accused’s plea was not unequivocal. His explanation suggested he believed the information was true, negating the offence’s knowledge element.
