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
Soita Gregory Kanyike alias Wandeme Nicholas v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2020) [2025] UGCA 222 (10 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and plea bargain but found the sentence illegal for failing to deduct 3 years and 8 months spent on remand.
Uganda v Basalaine Umar (Criminal Session Case 248 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 471 (16 June 2025)
The High Court of Uganda sentenced Basalaine Umar to 20 years for aggravated defilement, deducting remand time to reach an effective term of 17 years, 3 months, and 14 days.
Rusongwa Medard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0282 of 2019) [2025] UGCA 188 (13 June 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to arithmetically deduct the period spent on remand from the sentence, contrary to Article 23(8) of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in Rwabugande Moses vs Uganda. Additionally, the trial judge did not adequately consider mitigating factors, particularly the appellant's advanced age, as required by the Sentencing Guidelines. The appellate court, exercising its powers under Section 11 of the Judicature Act, set aside the ambiguous and illegal sentence and resentenced the appellant to 30 years' imprisonment, deduct…
Source excerpt
Kiiza Jovan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2020) [2025] UGCA 178 (30 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a 35-year sentence for murder, finding the trial court had considered mitigation and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
Kanyesigye v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 106 of 2016) [2025] UGCA 155 (21 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the sentence of 50 years' imprisonment for murder was manifestly harsh and excessive when compared to precedents for similar offences, where sentences ranged from 20 to 30 years. The trial Judge failed to deduct the period spent on remand, which is a mandatory requirement under Article 23(8) of the Constitution and Guideline 15 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The failure to arithmetically deduct the remand period rendered the sentence illegal. The appellate court, exercising its powers under section 11 of the Judicature Act, imposed a fresh sentence of 30 years' i…
Source excerpt
Munyaneza & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 117 of 2016) [2025] UGCA 153 (21 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that although the trial judge's wording regarding the sentence was ambiguous, he properly exercised his discretion by considering both mitigating and aggravating factors and deducting the remand period from the sentence. The sentence of 28 years and 63 days' imprisonment was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence, the sentencing range, and the maximum penalty for aggravated robbery. The trial judge was alive to the principles of consistency, uniformity, and the requirement to deduct the remand period. There was no miscarriage of justice, and the sentence di…
Source excerpt
Munyaneza Faustino and Another v Mugarura Emmanuel and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 244 (21 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge's wording regarding the sentence was ambiguous, he properly exercised his discretion by considering both mitigating and aggravating factors, and by deducting the remand period from the 30-year sentence for aggravated robbery. The court held that the sentence of 28 years and 63 days was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence, the maximum penalty of death, and the sentencing guidelines. The appellate court reiterated that it would only interfere with a sentence if it was illegal, based on a wrong principle, or manifestly excessive,…
Source excerpt
Byamugisha v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 186 of 2016) [2025] UGCA 150 (20 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly followed the procedure for plea bargains as set out in the Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules, 2016. The plea bargain agreement was clear, and the judge's findings confirmed that the appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his rights and entered the agreement. The court found no illegality or irregularity in the process. However, the appellate court identified a minor error in the calculation of the sentence, specifically the deduction for time spent on remand, and corrected it to reflect the accurate period. The appeal w…
Source excerpt
Twesigye v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 178 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 148 (20 May 2025)
The Court found that the sentence of 32 ½ years imprisonment for murder was within the established sentencing range and consistent with both mitigating and aggravating factors. The trial judge considered the appellant's guilty plea and time spent on remand, as required by the law at the time, which did not mandate an arithmetic deduction of remand period. The Court held that the sentence was neither harsh nor excessive and that the trial judge did not err in principle or overlook material factors. The subsequent requirement for arithmetic deduction of remand period established in Rwabugande M…
Source excerpt
Sebaduka Umar v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.O227 of 2016) [2025] UGCA 137 (14 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a sentence appeal, finding the trial court failed to deduct 1 year and 3 months spent on remand from a plea-bargained 13-year sentence.
