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
Lutu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2015) [2016] UGHCCRD 89 (27 June 2016)
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence and relied on unchallenged testimony.
Turyatemba v Musinguzi (Hct Civil Appeal No.035 of 2007) [2012] UGHC 155 (7 August 2012)
The High Court upheld liability and a UGX 12 million damages award for injuries from reckless driving, dismissing the appeal with costs.
Kagere Ibrahim Vs. Uganda (Crim Appeal No. 03 Of 2010) (Crim Appeal No. 03 of 2010) [2010] UGHC 116 (21 July 2010)
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal after finding that the plea was not properly taken because the charge did not adequately explain the ingredient of reckless driving.
Bakwata v Uganda (HCT-04-CR-CN-0027/2002) [2008] UGHCCRD 60 (7 August 2008)
The High Court upheld a traffic conviction but corrected an unlawful sentence below the statutory minimum on the second count.
Isingoma Asafu v Uganda - High Court Criminal Appeal No. MSK-00-CR-CV-0009 of 1999 (High Court Criminal Appeal No. MSK -00- CR CV-0009 of 1999) [1999] UGHC 5 (25 August 1999)
The High Court quashed a conviction for count 1 because the charge and conviction did not match, but upheld count 2 for causing bodily injury by reckless driving.
Uganda v Kabibi (Criminal Appeal Case No. 11 of 1992) [1993] UGHCCRD 10 (28 April 1993)
The High Court dismissed the State’s criminal appeal against an acquittal for causing death by reckless driving, finding recklessness was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Kigozi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 70 of 1991) [1991] UGHC 43 (17 December 1991)
The High Court upheld a 6-month custodial sentence for reckless driving but set aside a 3-year driving disqualification because the appellant was not allowed to plead special reasons.
Rex v Balabanoff (Cr.App. No. 36/1936) [1936] EACA 140 (1 January 1936)
The East African Court of Appeal quashed a conviction for alleged dangerous driving, finding the evidence insufficient and the charge bad for duplicity.
Prudhomme v Rex (Cr. App. 7/1927.) [1927] EACA 42 (1 January 1927)
The Court of Appeal upheld a dangerous-driving conviction, holding that contributory negligence is no defence in crime and civil-law passing rules do not control criminal liability.
Idirisaa Mugisa V Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0016 of 2008) [2013] UGHC 253 (4 March 2013)
The court found that the charge sheet was fatally defective because the statement of offence alleged reckless driving while the particulars described dangerous driving, which are distinct offences under the Traffic and Road Safety Act. This variance created confusion and made it impossible for the accused to receive a meaningful explanation of the charge's ingredients, especially as he relied on interpretation and had no legal representation. As a result, the plea of guilty could not be considered unequivocal, and the conviction and sentence based on such a plea were invalid. The trial magist…
Source excerpt
