Uganda Case Law

Mussa v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 031/2016)

Mussa v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 031/2016) [2023] AfCHPR 11 (13 June 2023)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 031/2016

Judge

Adjei J, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Kioko J, Mengue J, Ntsebeza J, Sacko J, Tchikaya VP

The Court found that the applicant's conviction was based on a confession determined by the High Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal to be voluntary, corroborated by other evidence, and not obtained under duress. The Court held that it is not an appellate body but may assess whether domestic proceedings meet international human rights standards. The applicant failed to prove that his application for review was properly filed and served, or that there was undue delay attributable to the state. The Court also found that the applicant was represented by state-funded counsel at all relevant…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Right To Be Heard
• Right To Counsel
• Right To Appeal
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Mandatory Death Penalty

Amir and Others v Tanzania (Application No. 014/2015)

Amir and Others v Tanzania (Application No. 014/2015) [2019] AfCHPR 49 (28 November 2019)

Court

African Court on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Application No. 014/2015

Judge

Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Guissè J, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J, Mukamulisa J, Niyungeko J, Orè P

The Court found that the 30-year sentence imposed on the Applicants was lawful, as the Minimum Sentences Act, as amended, prescribed a minimum of 30 years for armed robbery at the time of the offence. However, the Court held that the Respondent State violated the Applicants' right to a fair trial under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter by failing to provide free legal assistance and by not informing them of their right to counsel, especially given the seriousness of the charge and their indigence. The Court determined that the Applicants had exhausted ordinary local remedies by appealing to the…

Source excerpt

• Right To Fair Trial
• Legal Aid
• Right To Counsel
• Criminal Sentencing
• Exhaustion Of Local Remedies

Komakech v Uganda

Komakech v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0072 of 2008) [2014] UGCA 15 (25 March 2014)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 0072 of 2008

The Court of Appeal upheld Komakech Nestore’s conviction and 14-year sentence for robbery, finding no prejudice from sentencing in the absence of defence counsel.

• Sentencing Procedure
• Right To Counsel
• Aggravated Robbery
• Fair Hearing
• Mitigating Factors
• Sentencing-procedure

Uganda v Ojangole

Uganda v Ojangole (Criminal Case 1 of 2014) [2014] UGHCACD 3 (13 February 2014)

Court

HC: Anti corruption Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Case 1 of 2014

The court held that M/S Ligomarc & Co. Advocates, being the legal representatives of the accused’s employer and having compiled evidence central to the prosecution’s case, are in a position of conflict of interest if they represent the accused. The firm’s involvement as both potential witnesses and counsel creates a scenario where professional conduct regulations are breached, specifically those prohibiting advocates from acting where they may be required to give evidence or where their fiduciary duties are compromised. The accused’s constitutional right to counsel of choice does not override…

Source excerpt

• Conflict Of Interest
• Fiduciary Duty
• Professional Conduct Of Advocates
• Right To Counsel
• Advocate As Witness

Uganda v Ojangole

Uganda v Ojangole (Criminal Case No. 1 of 2014) [2014] UGHC 104 (13 February 2014)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Case No. 1 of 2014

Judge

Gidudu, J

The High Court held that M/S Ligomarc & Co. Advocates could not represent the accused because the firm also represented her employer and had compiled evidence for the prosecution.

• Conflict Of Interest
• Fiduciary Duties
• Professional Conduct Of Advocates
• Right To Counsel
• Conflict-of-interest
• Fiduciary-duties

Kibiranga John Vs. Uganda (Crim. Appeal No. 41 Of 2006) (Crim. Appeal No. 41 of 2006)

Kibiranga John Vs. Uganda (Crim. Appeal No. 41 Of 2006) (Crim. Appeal No. 41 of 2006) [2010] UGHC 111 (28 July 2010)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Crim. Appeal No. 41 of 2006

The High Court found that the prosecution proved all ingredients of embezzlement beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant, as Managing Director, collected company funds, failed to bank them as required, and did not account for their use. Multiple witnesses corroborated the collection and lack of accountability. The audit and expert evidence confirmed the missing amount and the appellant's involvement. The court rejected the appellant's claims regarding denial of legal representation, finding he was represented by counsel at various stages and was not deprived of the right to cross-examine or de…

Source excerpt

• Embezzlement
• Corporate Officer Liability
• Company Funds Misappropriation
• Right To Counsel
• Sentencing Guidelines

Law office of Ghazi Suleiman v Sudan (Communication 222 of 1998; Communication 229 of 1999)

Law office of Ghazi Suleiman v Sudan (Communication 222 of 1998; Communication 229 of 1999) [2003] ACHPR 46 (29 May 2003)

Court

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Communication 222 of 1998 ; Communication 229 of 1999

The African Commission found Sudan violated Charter rights by detaining complainants without charge, denying counsel, and trying civilians before a military court.

• Fair Trial Rights
• Military Tribunals
• Torture And Inhuman Treatment
• Arbitrary Detention
• Right To Counsel
• Judicial Independence

Serwadda Muhammed v Uganda

Serwadda Muhammed v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1999) [2000] UGCA 11 (14 August 2000)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1999

The Court of Appeal allowed a murder appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence, and ordered a retrial after finding procedural and evidential defects.

• Murder
• Confession Evidence
• Right To Counsel
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Accomplice Corroboration
• Trial Procedure

Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria (Communication 87 of 1993)

Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria (Communication 87 of 1993) [1995] ACHPR 6 (22 March 1995)

Court

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Case number

Communication 87 of 1993

The African Commission found Nigeria violated fair-trial guarantees by barring review of special tribunal decisions, denying counsel, and using a biased tribunal.

• Right To Fair Trial
• Right To Appeal
• Impartial Tribunal
• Right To Counsel
• Death Penalty Procedure
• Fair-trial-rights

Yahaya Kiriisa v Attorney General and Another

Yahaya Kiriisa v Attorney General and Another (Civil Appeal 7 of 1994) [1994] UGSC 50 (21 November 1994)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 7 of 1994

Judge

Mayindo, DCJ

The Supreme Court set aside a High Court dismissal for want of prosecution, holding the adjournment refusal was not a judicious exercise of discretion.

• Adjournment Discretion
• Right To Counsel
• Repossession Of Property
• Expropriated Property Act
• Want Of Prosecution
• Aggrieved Party Status