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
Uganda v K.R (Criminal Session 188 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 43 (5 June 2024)
The High Court held that a juvenile accused was remanded in an adult prison and denied juvenile safeguards, violating non-derogable fair-hearing rights.
Uganda v K J and Another (HCT-00-CR-JSC 625 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCRD 107 (26 July 2023)
The High Court held that juvenile accused persons had been unlawfully remanded with adults, declared the trial a nullity, and acquitted them.
Uganda v Kakube (Criminal Session Case 74 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 489 (29 June 2023)
The accused was a minor at the time of the alleged offence and was illegally detained and charged as an adult, contrary to the provisions of the Children Act. The law requires that a child should not be detained in an adult prison, should be remanded for no more than six months, and should have their trial completed within twelve months of taking plea. The accused spent nine years on remand, far exceeding the maximum permissible period for a juvenile offender, and his rights to a fair and expeditious hearing were violated. The trial, commenced more than three years after committal, is illegal…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Kakube Stone alias Topher (Criminal Session 74 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 504 (29 June 2023)
The High Court of Uganda discharged a juvenile accused after finding he had been illegally detained as an adult for nine years, in breach of children’s rights and trial timeliness rules.
Bazibu v Attorney General and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 110 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 38 (24 January 2022)
The applicant, though a civilian, became subject to military law by virtue of Section 119(1)(h)(i) of the UPDF Act, having been found in unlawful possession of ammunition ordinarily a monopoly of the Defence Forces. The General Court Martial therefore had jurisdiction to try him. However, the law requires that civilians charged before military courts be remanded in civil prisons, not military facilities. The applicant's transfer from Kitalya Civilian Prison to Makindye Military Barracks was contrary to Regulation 5 of the Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (Application to Civilians) Regulations a…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Edema William (Criminal Sessions Case No. 0104 of 2016) [2018] UGHCCRD 90 (26 February 2018)
The High Court dismissed a criminal case for want of prosecution after repeated unexplained absence of prosecution witnesses and discharged the accused.
Mulebi v Officer in Charge Kigo & Ors (Misc Cause No. 125 of 2013) [2013] UGHCCD 867 (20 December 2013)
The court held that habeas corpus is not the appropriate proceeding to challenge the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial or the validity of the charge sheet. The applicant was lawfully detained, tried, and convicted by a recognized court of law, and the return of the writ established the legal authority for his detention. The legality of the charges and the jurisdiction of the court martial are matters for the trial court, not for determination in habeas corpus proceedings. Since the applicant was convicted of unlawful possession of firearms that are a monopoly of the UPDF, there is a s…
Source excerpt
Balidawa v Officer in Charge Kigo Prison & Ors (Misc Cause No. 022 of 2013) [2013] UGHCCD 166 (20 December 2013)
The High Court dismissed a habeas corpus application, holding that challenges to military court jurisdiction and the charge sheet belonged in the trial court, not habeas proceedings.
Karuhanga v Inspector General of Police & Ors (Misc Cause No. 86 of 2013) [2013] UGHCCD 143 (28 October 2013)
The court found that while the applicant was detained for an extended period without charge prior to 18th October 2013, she is currently held under a valid remand warrant issued by Buganda Road Court for serious offences. Habeas corpus proceedings are concerned only with the lawfulness of present detention, not prior illegality. The authenticity of the remand documents was not challenged, and the applicant is lawfully detained on the authority of the court. Any grievances regarding earlier detention or the validity of charges must be pursued in other proceedings before the appropriate forum.…
Source excerpt
Kishaija Steven v Attorney General (Misc.Cause No.15 Of 2010) (Misc.Cause No.15 of 2010) [2010] UGHC 22 (21 February 2010)
The High Court granted habeas corpus and ordered Kishaija Steven’s immediate release, holding his remand by the General Court Martial and detention unlawful.
