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
Kintu v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 413 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 76 (14 November 2024)
The High Court reinstated Kintu Erisa’s bail after finding it was cancelled without a fair hearing or sufficient proof of interference with investigations.
Sserwadda v Uganda & Another (Miscellaneous Application 16 of 2024) [2024] UGHCICD 13 (23 September 2024)
The court found that the Applicant failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate his claims of torture, denial of access to legal or medical assistance, or violation of his right to a fair, speedy, and public hearing. The Applicant's allegations were unsupported by medical or documentary evidence, and the Respondents' affidavits and records contradicted his claims. The court emphasized that the burden of proof rests on the Applicant, and mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient. The court also noted that delays in the main criminal trial were attributable to the accused p…
Source excerpt
Adiandu v Inspector General of Police and Another (Misc Cause 146 of 2022) [2024] UGHCCD 5 (3 January 2024)
The High Court found unlawful detention beyond 48 hours and unlawful continued retention of a police officer’s phone, but rejected the fair-hearing claim.
Namujumbi alias Hanifa v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 98 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 87 (6 November 2023)
The Applicant has been in custody for over 15 months without trial, exceeding the constitutional threshold for mandatory consideration of bail under Article 23(6)(c). The Applicant has a fixed place of abode within the court's jurisdiction and presented three substantial sureties capable of ensuring her compliance with bail conditions. The Respondent's objections regarding lack of property documentation and risk of absconding are outweighed by the Applicant's demonstrated ties to the community and absence of prior criminal record. The Applicant's commitment to the High Court for trial negates…
Source excerpt
Opila and Others v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 11 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCRD 59 (30 August 2023)
The High Court in Soroti granted bail to Opila Samuel in a murder case, but denied bail to Elelu Bernard and Esenga Paul for failing to prove fixed places of abode.
Tumwesige Francis v Attorney General (Consitutional Petition No. 36 of 2018) [2022] UGCC 5 (2 December 2022)
Sections 168(1)(c) and (d) of the Penal Code Act are unconstitutional because they fail to define criminal offences with sufficient clarity and precision, violating the principle of legality under article 28(12) of the Constitution. The provisions are vague and overly broad, allowing for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and reverse the presumption of innocence by requiring accused persons to prove their innocence. This contravenes the non-derogable right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence under articles 28(3)(a) and 44(c). The impugned sections also facilitate arbitrary dep…
Source excerpt
Tibakuno Nathan James v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 131 of 2007) [2019] UGHRC 2 (11 March 2019)
The Tribunal found that the applicant was detained for seven days, which exceeded the 48-hour limit prescribed by the Constitution for lawful detention without court appearance. The respondent did not contest the facts and agreed to settle the matter, effectively admitting liability. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the applicant's right to personal liberty was violated by state agents, and the respondent is liable for the violation. Compensation was awarded as agreed by the parties, reflecting the period of unlawful detention and the need to uphold constitutional protections against arb…
Source excerpt
Semambo Ssesanga Ronald v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 9 of 2007) [2018] UGHRC 20 (26 March 2018)
The Tribunal found that the applicant was detained for 29 days without being brought before a court, far exceeding the constitutional and statutory maximum of 48 hours. The evidence, including the lockup register and corroborating witness testimony, was uncontested by the Respondent. The Tribunal held that the detention was unlawful and in violation of Article 23(4)(b) of the Constitution and Section 25 of the Police Act. The Attorney General was found vicariously liable for the acts of its agents, as the detention occurred in the course of their employment. The applicant was entitled to comp…
Source excerpt
Sakwe v Cameroon (Communication 230 of 1999) [2000] ACHPR 26 (6 November 2000)
The African Commission declared Motale Zacharia Sakwe’s communication against Cameroon inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies under Article 56(5).
