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
Turyasingura v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 404 of 2014) [2023] UGCA 264 (12 October 2023)
The Court of Appeal reviewed a rape sentence challenge, found mitigating factors had been overlooked, and ultimately affirmed the 17 years 6 months sentence.
Ntananga v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 53 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCRD 75 (17 July 2023)
The High Court granted bail to a rape accused after the complainant and alleged victim swore that the allegation was untrue and wished to withdraw, with sureties and reporting conditions imposed.
Ntananga v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 268 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCRD 68 (17 July 2023)
The High Court granted the applicant bail pending trial, finding unrebutted affidavits from the complainant and alleged victim weakened the prosecution case.
Kakembo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2014) [2022] UGCA 300 (23 December 2022)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge complied with Article 23(8) of the Constitution by taking into account the period spent on remand, as evidenced by the commitment warrant signed by the judge, which specified a sentence of 22 years after deducting three years spent on remand. However, upon reviewing sentencing precedents for rape, the court determined that the sentence was manifestly excessive for a youthful offender who pleaded guilty. The court invoked its powers under section 11 of the Judicature Act and imposed a sentence of 18 years, further deducting the three years spent o…
Source excerpt
Komakech Geoffrey vs Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2022) [2022] UGHC 26 (24 October 2022)
The applicant failed to prove any exceptional circumstances, such as grave illness, that would justify bail for a capital offence. The evidence showed ongoing interference with the victim by the applicant's relatives, and the risk of further interference if released was high. The sureties presented were not substantial, as their introduction letters were not issued by their local leader and their residence and financial status were questionable. The court found no assurance that the applicant would attend trial if released on bail. In light of these findings, the application for bail was dism…
Source excerpt
Kamagara v Uganda (Consolidated Criminal Appeal No. 0380 of 2014 & 0725 of 2015) [2020] UGCA 118 (13 October 2020)
The Court of Appeal varied a rape sentence, finding the trial court failed to consider key mitigating factors. The sentence was reduced to 11 years and 6 months.
Kansiime v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0616 of 2014) [2019] UGCA 2035 (9 December 2019)
The Court of Appeal upheld a 19-year sentence for rape, finding no error in the trial judge’s discretion or the factors considered.
Mpasa Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0189 of 2010) [2019] UGCA 214 (17 July 2019)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge had considered both mitigating and aggravating factors, including the appellant's status as a first offender and his age. However, the appellate court emphasized the need for uniformity and consistency in sentencing, referencing previous decisions where sentences for rape were reduced on appeal. The court determined that the sentence of 22 years was manifestly harsh in the circumstances and set it aside. Applying the principles from Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda and considering the period spent on remand, the court resentenced the appellant to 12…
Source excerpt
Kizito v Uganda [2018] UGSC 36 (30 July 2018)
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court failed to deduct remand time from a rape sentence, making the sentence illegal under Article 23(8).
Serubega Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.0147 of 2008) [2015] UGCA 93 (16 October 2015)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to ascertain the appellant's age at the time of the offence, which was a critical factor in determining the proper procedure and sentencing. The evidence regarding age was inconclusive, and the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was 18 years or older. In line with statutory and case law, the doubt regarding age was resolved in favour of the appellant, who should have been treated as a child offender. Consequently, the sentence imposed exceeded the statutory maximum for a child, and the appellan…
Source excerpt
