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
Sekinyomo and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 26 of 1993) [1995] UGSC 24 (5 May 1995)
The Supreme Court of Uganda upheld aggravated robbery convictions, holding that recent possession of stolen property shortly after the robbery supported an inference of participation.
Uganda v Wetyaki (Criminal Session Case No. 138/94) [1994] UGHCCRD 19 (19 December 1994)
The High Court acquitted Abdu Wetyaki of robbery with aggravation, finding that contradictions in the prosecution case and a credible explanation for possession of a radio cassette left reasonable doubt.
Uganda v Okethi (Criminal Session Case 167 of 1991) [1993] UGHC 40 (15 April 1993)
The High Court held that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case on murder and aggravated robbery counts and acquitted the accused.
Uganda v Ndinywa (Crim.Rev.No.205 of 1976) [1977] UGHCCRD 2 (28 January 1977)
The High Court quashed a conviction where police used a possession-of-stolen-property charge improperly and the magistrate convicted the accused of uncharged theft.
Abdulrehman v Regina (Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 1952) [1952] EACA 300 (1 January 1952)
The court held that a prima facie case of conscious possession was enough to call for an explanation under Penal Code section 319(2), and the magistrate could reject uncontradicted defence evidence.
Rex v Mathenge (Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1946) [1946] EACA 60 (1 January 1946)
The appeal was allowed where the only link to the appellant was a poorly identified towel, prior convictions were raised before judgment, and the conviction was duplicitous.
Rex v Jamal (Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1941) [1941] EACA 44 (1 January 1941)
The court upheld a conviction under section 296 of the Kenya Penal Code, holding that the appellant’s role in arranging and facilitating the sale amounted to joint possession.
Rex v Mugi (Criminal Appeal No. 209 OF 1938) [1939] EACA 90 (1 January 1939)
The court found that the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that Kanyuku was last seen alive and well on 2nd May, with only the appellant present. The huts were burned that night, and Kanyuku disappeared without reason. The remains found in the dung heap were identified as Kanyuku's by physical characteristics and personal effects. The appellant's subsequent possession and disposal of Kanyuku's property, coupled with false explanations for his disappearance, were inconsistent with innocence. The court held that, applying the principles governing circumstantial evidence, the only rea…
Source excerpt
Rex v Ngelenu (Cr. Conf. Case No. 67/1939) [1938] EACA 162 (1 January 1938)
The court confirmed a conviction under section 10 of the Stock and Produce Theft (Levy of Fines) Ordinance, holding that the accused had not affirmatively proved lawful possession of the cows.
Rex v Sururei (Con. C. 734/1932.) [1932] EACA 12 (1 January 1932)
The court held that “found in the possession” means actual physical possession, not constructive possession, and allowed the appeal, reversing conviction and sentence.
