Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 1 court collection
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:48 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

1 Jan 1952

Criminal Law [1952] EACA 229

Rugwire v Rex

Rugwire v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 1951) [1952] EACA 229 (1 January 1952)

Court: East African Court of Appeal
Case number: Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 1951
Judge: Bourke J, Nihill P, Worley VP

The Court held that the trial Judge was justified in refusing to find the appellant guilty but insane. The evidence, including medical testimony and witness accounts, did not establish the probability that the appellant was legally insane due to intoxication at the time of the offence. The burden on the accused to rebut the presumption of sanity is lower than the prosecution's burden to prove guilt, but it must at least establish the probability of insanity, which the appellant failed to do. The appellant's behaviour before and after the crime, including rational speech and recognition of the…

Source excerpt

Insanity Defence
Burden Of Proof
Intoxication
Murder
Presumption Of Sanity

Read case analysis

1 Jan 1932

Criminal Law [1932] EACA 23

Rex v Ross (Cr. App. 205/1932.)

Rex v Ross (Cr. App. 205/1932.) [1932] EACA 23 (1 January 1932)

Court: East African Court of Appeal
Case number: Cr. App. 205/1932.
Judge: Law, Ag C.J. (Uganda), Sheridan, C.J. (Tanganyika), Thomas, J. (Kenya)

The Court held that the law in Kenya regarding the insanity defence is the same as in England under the McNaughton Rules. The presumption of sanity stands unless the accused proves legal insanity at the time of the act. The trial judge correctly directed the jury that the burden of proof for insanity rests on the accused, who must satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt. The judge adequately reviewed the medical and factual evidence, and exclusion of scientific journal reports and certain evidence was proper. The jury was entitled to accept the accused's own account of the events, which did…