Uganda Case Law

Masaba v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN-NO. 022 of 2014)

Masaba v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN-NO. 022 of 2014) [2015] UGHCCRD 45 (28 October 2015)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT-00-AC-CN-NO. 022 of 2014

Judge

Tibulya, J

The High Court found that the trial magistrate acted on correct sentencing principles by considering the Sentencing Guidelines, which require courts to take into account the period spent on remand. The court is not required to explicitly state or arithmetically deduct the remand period, and the sentences imposed were well below the statutory maximums. The offences involved prohibited goods (ivory), for which no dutiable value could be attached, justifying the choice of imprisonment over a fine. The sentences were neither illegal nor manifestly excessive, and all relevant factors were consider…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Principles
• Remand Periods
• Wildlife Offences
• Possession Of Prohibited Goods

Rex v Kaninu

Rex v Kaninu (Criminal Revision Case No. 114 of 1949) [1950] EACA 108 (1 January 1950)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Revision Case No. 114 of 1949

Judge

Modera J

The court held that forfeiture under section 8(b)(1) of the Sugar Ordinance arose by operation of law, so the Magistrate’s forfeiture order was set aside.

• Forfeiture Of Property
• Operation Of Law
• Magistrate Powers
• Sugar Ordinance
• Possession Of Prohibited Goods
• Forfeiture-of-property