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
Ssenkungu Akim v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2023) [2025] UGSC 22 (4 July 2025)
The Supreme Court of Uganda dismissed a criminal appeal, holding that issues not raised before the Court of Appeal could not be entertained and that the sentence challenge was barred.
Mutambi Jackson v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2016) [2025] UGCA 243 (1 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the evidence of PW3 and PW5, who testified that Katungi (A1) stated he gave the deceased's head to the appellant, was admissible under section 59(b) of the Evidence Act and not hearsay. However, this evidence required corroboration, which was provided by PW10, the investigating officer, who testified that the appellant led police to the swamp where he claimed to have disposed of the head. The appellant's conduct in leading police to the location was considered incriminating and indicative of guilt. The court held that the prosecution proved the appellant's parti…
Source excerpt
Kyaligonza Richard Joseph v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 2022) [2025] UGCA 191 (13 June 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant voluntarily entered into the plea bargain agreement, with the sentence of 17 years and 4 months clearly indicated and explained to him. The trial court complied with the mandatory requirements under the Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules, ensuring the appellant understood his rights and the consequences of the agreement. The appellant was legally represented and had the opportunity to object to the sentence but did not do so. The court held that the sentence was legal, formed part of the plea bargain agreement, and there was no miscarriage of justice.…
Source excerpt
Rusongwa Medard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0282 of 2019) [2025] UGCA 188 (13 June 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to arithmetically deduct the period spent on remand from the sentence, contrary to Article 23(8) of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in Rwabugande Moses vs Uganda. Additionally, the trial judge did not adequately consider mitigating factors, particularly the appellant's advanced age, as required by the Sentencing Guidelines. The appellate court, exercising its powers under Section 11 of the Judicature Act, set aside the ambiguous and illegal sentence and resentenced the appellant to 30 years' imprisonment, deduct…
Source excerpt
Kiiza Jovan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2020) [2025] UGCA 178 (30 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a 35-year sentence for murder, finding the trial court had considered mitigation and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
January Francis v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0122 of 2023) [2025] UGCA 179 (30 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not rely solely on the uncorroborated evidence of the co-accused. The conviction was supported by corroborated circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's conduct after the crime, testimonies of witnesses, and medical evidence establishing the cause of death. The trial judge properly evaluated both prosecution and defence evidence and found the prosecution's version credible. The sentence imposed was within the range for similar offences and was not based on any wrong principle or material oversight. The appeal was dismissed as all gro…
Source excerpt
Ategka Yubu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0066-2019) [2025] UGCA 184 (30 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge to life sentences for murder, holding that the trial judge properly weighed aggravating and mitigating factors.
Kanyesigye v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 106 of 2016) [2025] UGCA 155 (21 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that the sentence of 50 years' imprisonment for murder was manifestly harsh and excessive when compared to precedents for similar offences, where sentences ranged from 20 to 30 years. The trial Judge failed to deduct the period spent on remand, which is a mandatory requirement under Article 23(8) of the Constitution and Guideline 15 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The failure to arithmetically deduct the remand period rendered the sentence illegal. The appellate court, exercising its powers under section 11 of the Judicature Act, imposed a fresh sentence of 30 years' i…
Source excerpt
Munyaneza & 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 117 of 2016) [2025] UGCA 153 (21 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that although the trial judge's wording regarding the sentence was ambiguous, he properly exercised his discretion by considering both mitigating and aggravating factors and deducting the remand period from the sentence. The sentence of 28 years and 63 days' imprisonment was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence, the sentencing range, and the maximum penalty for aggravated robbery. The trial judge was alive to the principles of consistency, uniformity, and the requirement to deduct the remand period. There was no miscarriage of justice, and the sentence di…
Source excerpt
Munyaneza Faustino and Another v Mugarura Emmanuel and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2015) [2025] UGCA 244 (21 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge's wording regarding the sentence was ambiguous, he properly exercised his discretion by considering both mitigating and aggravating factors, and by deducting the remand period from the 30-year sentence for aggravated robbery. The court held that the sentence of 28 years and 63 days was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence, the maximum penalty of death, and the sentencing guidelines. The appellate court reiterated that it would only interfere with a sentence if it was illegal, based on a wrong principle, or manifestly excessive,…
Source excerpt
