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
Sebwalida v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 29 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 298 (19 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application challenging alleged unlawful remand beyond 360 days, finding no documentary evidence to prove the detention period.
Orago v Uganda (miscellaneous Application . 123 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 170 (8 April 2025)
High Court bail ruling in a rape prosecution. The court accepted fixed abode and substantial sureties, but dismissed bail due to likely witness interference.
Kato Henry v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 96 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 21 (5 January 2025)
The High Court granted Kato Henry mandatory bail after finding he had been remanded for over six months without committal, and imposed cash and surety conditions.
Taremwa & 3 Others v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 32 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 941 (7 October 2024)
The court found that the 1st Applicant was a juvenile at the time of arrest and detention, as evidenced by his UCE certificate and statements, and that he was unlawfully detained in adult prison for over five years, far exceeding the statutory maximum remand period for juveniles. This constituted a breach of his non derogable rights under the Constitution and the Children Act. The court held that, pursuant to Section 11(2) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019, and relevant constitutional provisions, the trial against the 1st Applicant was a nullity and must be discontinued, with immedi…
Source excerpt
Andruale & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 714 (25 July 2024)
The applicants have been on remand for more than 180 days without committal to the High Court for trial, which entitles them to mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution and Paragraph 10 of the Bail Guidelines. The court found that the applicants presented substantial sureties who are close family members and have undertaken to ensure the applicants' attendance in court. Although the applicants did not attach documentary proof of their fixed places of abode, the respondent did not raise this as an objection. The court concluded that the applicants met the requirements for mand…
Source excerpt
Addabu v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 11 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 719 (25 July 2024)
The High Court at Arua granted Adabbu Francis mandatory bail, finding he had spent over 180 days on remand, had a fixed abode, and presented substantial sureties.
Akwenyu v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 5 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 634 (2 July 2024)
The court found that the applicant has a constitutional right to apply for bail and that the offences, though capital in nature, are bailable. The applicant has been on remand for over nine months, exceeding the mandatory 180-day period, and has demonstrated a fixed place of abode within the court's jurisdiction. The applicant presented two substantial sureties—his mother and maternal uncle—whose documentation and relationship to the applicant were verified and found satisfactory. There was no evidence of previous non-compliance with bail or pending charges. The respondent did not oppose the…
Source excerpt
Bugembe v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 172 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 50 (6 June 2024)
The court found that the applicant had already been committed to the High Court for trial as per the court records (Session Case No. 303 of 2023). Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution provides for mandatory bail only if the accused has been on remand for 180 days before committal. Since the applicant was already committed, he no longer qualified for mandatory bail. The application was therefore dismissed as the constitutional threshold for mandatory bail was not met post-committal.
Source excerpt
Opio v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 184 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 49 (6 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for mandatory bail after finding the applicant had already been committed for trial, so Article 23(6)(c) no longer applied.
Luyima v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 184 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 53 (6 June 2024)
The applicant was committed to the High Court for trial on 7th June 2023, as confirmed by the court record and database. Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution provides for mandatory bail only if the accused has been on remand for 180 days before committal. Since the applicant has already been committed, he does not qualify for mandatory bail. The provisions are mandatory and do not permit release after committal. Therefore, the application for mandatory bail fails and is dismissed.
Source excerpt
