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 Mbaziira & 3 Others (HCT-00-CR-CN 90 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCRD 57 (14 October 2024)
The High Court held that only the DPP may personally seek withdrawal of a private prosecution, with court consent, and refused to act on the Chief State Attorney’s withdrawal submissions.
Uganda (Pivate Prosecution By Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka) v Honorable Mao and Others (Criminal Appeal 8 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCRD 146 (6 July 2023)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in dismissing the complaint on oath for lack of a letter from the local chief, as the law places the duty of consultation on the magistrate, not the complainant. The requirement for a supporting letter is discretionary, and its absence does not render a complaint incompetent. The court also held that the magistrate had territorial jurisdiction over the complaint, as the alleged offences occurred within the Central Division of Kampala, which falls under the magisterial area of the Law Development Centre Court. Furthermore, the court determin…
Source excerpt
Dr. Kamba Baleke v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2014) [2021] UGCC 5 (27 April 2021)
The Constitutional Court found that the petition did not raise any question for constitutional interpretation as required under Article 137 of the Constitution. The acts and omissions complained of by the petitioner, including the endorsement of the charge sheet, the conduct of concurrent trials, and the inclusion of alternative charges, were matters of enforcement and procedural regularity that fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court and not the Constitutional Court. The law permits alternative charges in indictments if they are founded on the same facts, and any errors or inconsisten…
Source excerpt
Barasa & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Revision N0. 1 of 2017.) [2018] UGHCCRD 216 (1 November 2018)
The High Court held that the prosecution process is exclusively under the mandate of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who determines the appropriate charges and is not subject to direction or control by the accused or any other party. The applicant, as a court bailiff, cannot dictate the charges to be preferred against him. Furthermore, the application for revision was brought against an interlocutory order—specifically, the trial magistrate's overruling of a preliminary objection—which is not subject to revision under Section 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act. The law and precedent r…
Source excerpt
