Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:27 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

7 Feb 2017

Criminal Law [2017] UGSC 79

Alenyo v Uganda

Alenyo v Uganda [2017] UGSC 79 (7 February 2017)

Court: Supreme Court of Uganda
Judge: Mwondha, JSC

The court found that the applicant had suffered substantial delay in the hearing of his appeal, which had already occurred and was likely to continue, infringing his right to a fair and speedy hearing under Article 28(1) of the Constitution. The delay was not attributable to the applicant but to procedural circumstances and actions of other parties. The applicant was a first offender, had good conduct, had never attempted to escape, and had produced substantial sureties. The appeal was not frivolous, and the Supreme Court had previously found it proper for hearing. The court held that the con…

Source excerpt

Bail Pending Appeal
Delay In Appeal Hearing
Rights Of Convicted Persons
Fair Hearing
Sureties Requirements

Read case analysis

14 Dec 2001

Constitutional Law [2001] UGCC 3

Kyamanywa v Uganda

Kyamanywa v Uganda (Constitutional Reference 10 of 2000) [2001] UGCC 3 (14 December 2001)

Court: Constitutional Court of Uganda
Case number: Constitutional Reference 10 of 2000
Judge: Okello, JA, Mpagi-Bahigeine, JA, Twinomujuni, JA, Engwau, JA, Kitumba, JA

By majority, the Constitutional Court held that the sentence of six strokes of the cane is inconsistent with Article 24 of the Constitution, which prohibits torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The Court reasoned that corporal punishment, by its very definition and nature, inflicts pain and suffering and thus falls squarely within the category of punishments prohibited by Article 24. The argument that only the manner of application, not the principle, is restricted was rejected, as the Constitution makes no such distinction. The Court further held that Article 273 do…