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, 03:59 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

28 Mar 2024

Criminal Law [2024] UGHC 484

Uganda v Kachope

Uganda v Kachope (Criminal Session 261 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 484 (28 March 2024)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: Criminal Session 261 of 2022
Judge: David S.L. Makumbi, J

The High Court, faced with an accused who has a documented history of episodic mental illness and is deemed unfit for trial, must ensure that proceedings comply with constitutional and statutory safeguards for persons with mental disabilities. Section 45(5) of the Trial on Indictments Act, previously relied upon for procedure in such cases, has been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in CEHURD v Attorney General, as it violates the rights of accused persons by labeling them 'criminal lunatics' without conviction. The Mental Health Act now provides the operative framework, r…

Source excerpt

Mental Health In Criminal Procedure
Fitness To Stand Trial
Rights Of Persons With Disabilities
Remand And Emergency Admission
Constitutional Compliance
Fair Trial Rights

Read case analysis

27 Sept 2019

Civil Procedure [2019] UGHCCD 276

Ssebuliba Kiwanuka v Musisi Kiwanuka

Ssebuliba Kiwanuka v Musisi Kiwanuka (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 249 OF 2019) [2019] UGHCCD 276 (27 September 2019)

Court: HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number: MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 249 OF 2019
Judge: Musa Ssekaana, J

The court found that the applicant failed to strictly comply with procedural requirements under the Mental Treatment Act and the Administration of Estates of Persons of Unsound Mind Act, particularly regarding notice and supporting medical evidence. The medical report relied upon was inconclusive and not sufficient to justify a forced mental examination. The respondent, after personal inquiry by the court, demonstrated no noticeable mental impairment and was capable of managing his affairs. The court emphasised that involuntary mental examination or treatment, absent compelling evidence, woul…