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
Habiyakale v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 215 of 2022) [2024] UGCA 337 (24 January 2024)
The Court of Appeal upheld Habiyakale Wilson’s conviction and 17 years 9 months’ sentence for aggravated defilement, finding the evidence and the indictment sufficient.
Uganda v Kilama (Criminal Session Case 261 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCRD 46 (21 August 2023)
The High Court found no prima facie case of aggravated defilement, holding that the victim’s age and the accused’s participation were not proved.
Kitongo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 8 (9 February 2021)
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, quashed a defilement conviction, and set aside a four-year sentence after finding key proof of age and evidential issues.
Isabirye v Uganda (Criminal Revision Cause No. 03 of 2018.) [2019] UGHCCRD 1 (8 January 2019)
The High Court declined criminal revision, holding that the evidence of age was unreliable and did not prove the convict was a juvenile at trial.
Uganda v Kiiza Bosco (HCT-05-CR-SC-0125 of 2003) (HCT-05-CR-SC-0125 of 2003) [2005] UGHC 22 (14 September 2005)
The High Court convicted Kiiza Bosco of defilement, finding the prosecution proved the victim was under 18, penetration occurred, and identification was reliable.
In Re: Kawesa (Minor) (Misc. Application No. 46 of 2003) [2004] UGHCFD 2 (2 September 2004)
The application failed because the applicants did not prove that Isaac Kawesa was a minor under the age of eighteen at the time of the application, which is a jurisdictional requirement for guardianship orders. The only evidence of age was an annotation on a land title, which indicated that Kawesa ceased to be a minor in 2004, making him ineligible for the relief sought. Furthermore, the applicants did not demonstrate how mortgaging the property would benefit the minor's welfare, nor did they show that the funds would be used for any of the facilities or rights guaranteed to children under th…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Apunyo Hudson (Criminal Session Case No.7 of 2004) [2004] UGHC 52 (28 July 2004)
The High Court acquitted Apunyo Hudson of defilement after finding the prosecution proved intercourse and participation, but not that the complainant was under 18.
Uganda v Sekabito Kassim (Criminal Case No. 178 of 2003) [2004] UGHC 10 (9 March 2004)
The High Court convicted Sekabito Kassim of defilement, finding the complainant was under 18 and that the evidence proved carnal knowledge and identification.
Katende Edward v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No 69 of 2003) [2003] UGHC 24 (16 December 2003)
The High Court refused bail, finding the applicant had not proved advanced age as an exceptional circumstance and had not shown he would not interfere with witnesses.
Uganda v Serugave Mohammed (HCT-05-CR-SC-0057-2001 ) (HCT-05-CR-SC-0057-2001) [2002] UGHC 91 (21 August 2002)
The High Court of Uganda convicted Serugave Mohammed of defilement, finding the complainant was under 18 and that the accused committed the offence.
