Uganda Case Law

Uganda v Katende Kasmoni - High Court Criminal Revisional Cause No. MSK-00-CR-CV-0014 of 1999 (High Court Revision Cause No. MSK -00-CR CV- 0014 of 1999)

Uganda v Katende Kasmoni - High Court Criminal Revisional Cause No. MSK-00-CR-CV-0014 of 1999 (High Court Revision Cause No. MSK -00-CR CV- 0014 of 1999) [1999] UGHC 6 (25 August 1999)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

High Court Revision Cause No. MSK -00-CR CV- 0014 of 1999

The High Court set aside a conviction for escaping from lawful custody after the underlying custody was quashed, and also held the sentence was irregular.

• Escape From Lawful Custody
• Conviction And Sentence Review
• Fair Trial Rights
• Sentencing Irregularities
• Escape-from-lawful-custody
• Criminal-revision

Uganda v Olet

Uganda v Olet (Criminal Revision 20 of 89) [1990] UGHC 34 (7 March 1990)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Revision 20 of 89

Judges

GM OKELLO, J

The trial magistrate failed to follow the mandatory procedure after the accused's plea of guilty by not putting the narrated facts to the accused for admission or denial, rendering the conviction unsafe. The particulars of the charge were vague, especially in count 2, failing to adequately inform the accused of the alleged offence. The accused's previous conviction was not proved as required by law, yet it was used to justify consecutive sentences and to treat the accused as an habitual offender. These procedural irregularities are fundamental and cannot be cured; therefore, the convictions a…

Source excerpt

• Plea Of Guilty Procedure
• Proof Of Previous Conviction
• Sentencing Irregularities
• Charge Particulars
• Habitual Offender
• Magistrate Duties

Crown v Waibunya (Revision Case 60/1927.)

Crown v Waibunya (Revision Case 60/1927.) [1927] EACJ 3 (1 January 1927)

Court

East African Court of Justice

Case number

Revision Case 60/1927.

Judge

Pickering J, Sheridan, J

A criminal revision set aside a conviction under the Employment of Natives Ordinance because the charge lacked particulars, the evidence was insufficient, and the sentence unlawfully combined imprisonment with a fine.

• Wilful Breach Of Duty
• Neglect Of Duty
• Criminal Liability For Neglect
• Employment Of Natives
• Sentencing Irregularities
• Criminal-procedure

Crown through Luxford v Waibunya wa Rori (Revision Case No. 60 of 1927)

Crown through Luxford v Waibunya wa Rori (Revision Case No. 60 of 1927) [1927] EACA 23 (1 January 1927)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Revision Case No. 60 of 1927

Judge

Pickering J, Sheridan, J

Revision of a conviction under section 48(2) of the Employment of Natives Ordinance was allowed because the charge lacked particulars and the sentence was unlawful.

• Wilful Breach Of Duty
• Neglect Of Duty
• Criminal Liability For Omission
• Employment Contracts
• Sentencing Irregularities
• Criminal-revision