Uganda v Arinaitwe (Criminal Session 739 of 2020) [2024] UGHCCRD 28 (27 March 2024)
Court
HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
Case number
Criminal Session 739 of 2020
Judge
Muwata, J
The High Court acquitted the accused of aggravated robbery after finding the prosecution proved theft and violence, but not participation beyond reasonable doubt.
Kagulire & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 75 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCRD 182 (21 July 2023)
Court
HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
Case number
Criminal Appeal 75 of 2022
Judge
Mutonyi, J
The appeal was allowed because the trial Chief Magistrate erred in law and fact by admitting and relying on electronic evidence and exhibits obtained in violation of Section 28 of the Computer Misuse Act, which mandates a search warrant for seizure of computer systems. The prosecution failed to prove all essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt, relying on insufficient, uncorroborated, and speculative evidence. No technical evidence was adduced to demonstrate actual interception or fraudulent use of international calls, nor was there proof of financial loss or tax evasion…
Nsubuga and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2021) [2022] UGCA 253 (14 October 2022)
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number
Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2021
Judge
Madrama, JA, Bamugemereire, JA, Luswata, JA
The Court of Appeal held that electronic evidence was unlawfully obtained without the warrant required by the Computer Misuse Act and quashed the convictions.
Kifampa & Another v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 154 OF 2017) [2020] UGHCCD 129 (1 June 2020)
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Case number
MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 154 OF 2017
Judge
Musa Ssekaana, J
The court found that the respondent's agents conducted a search at Nakasero Mosque without a search warrant or warrant card and failed to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards under the Police Act. The absence of written records and failure to notify the nearest magistrate rendered the search illegal and unlawful. The conduct of the security operatives during the search violated the applicants' rights to privacy, religious freedom, and protection of property under Articles 27, 29, and 37 of the Constitution. However, the applicants did not substantiate claims of torture or inhuman treat…