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
Wamboya Abdu Gafuli and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 029 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 455 (26 June 2025)
The High Court upheld convictions for threatening violence, found the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, and ordered the sentence file forwarded for confirmation.
Twikirize v Uganda (Civil Appeal 21 of 2017) [2025] UGCA 142 (21 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal found that although the trial judge did not explicitly record that the appellant's rights were explained to him in open court, the plea bargain agreement, signed by the appellant and his advocate, included an acknowledgment of the rights waived. The advocate confirmed that she explained the rights and the effect of the agreement to the appellant, and the judge confirmed the appellant's understanding. The court held that any omission by the trial judge to record the explanation of rights was a minor contravention that did not vitiate the proceedings or occasion a miscarriag…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Senoga (Criminal Confirmation 2 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 46 (11 February 2025)
The High Court revised a magistrate’s sentence for stealing a motorcycle, holding the four-year default term was illegal and separating compensation from the fine.
Uganda v Ntaganda & Another (Criminal Confirmation 9 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 53 (10 February 2025)
The High Court confirmed that the sentences imposed by the trial magistrate were within statutory limits and appropriate given the circumstances of the case. However, the trial magistrate failed to explicitly and arithmetically deduct the period spent on remand from the sentences, as required by Article 23(8) of the Constitution and relevant sentencing guidelines. The High Court recalculated the sentences, deducting the exact periods spent on remand for each convict, and ordered that the remaining terms be served accordingly. This ensures compliance with constitutional and statutory mandates…
Source excerpt
Nassozi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 4 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 77 (18 December 2024)
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal as premature, but confirmed and varied a five-year sentence by deducting remand time and upheld compensation.
Nassozi v Uganda (HCT-00-CR-CN 4 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCRD 74 (18 December 2024)
The High Court held the appeal was premature because the magistrate’s sentence required confirmation, then revised the sentence to reflect remand time and upheld compensation.
Marani & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 40 of 2014) [2024] UGSC 21 (1 March 2024)
The Supreme Court held that the defence of intoxication was not available to the 1st Appellant as it was neither raised nor substantiated at trial or in the Court of Appeal, and Rule 98 bars new grounds on second appeal. The remand period must be arithmetically deducted from the sentence, not merely considered among mitigating factors, as clarified in Rwabugande Moses v Uganda. The Court of Appeal's sentencing order was ambiguous and did not follow the correct procedure, necessitating resentencing by the Supreme Court. The age of the 2nd Appellant was an agreed fact at trial, and he was not a…
Source excerpt
Tagwika v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 352 of 2019) [2023] UGCA 207 (20 July 2023)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedure under the Judicature (Plea Bargain) Rules 2016 and the guidelines in Musinguzi Apollo v Uganda, as there was no formal plea taking, conviction, or proper sentencing on record. The sentence imposed was not based on the correct legal principles or applicable laws. This procedural irregularity vitiated the entire proceedings, rendering both the conviction and sentence a nullity. Consequently, the Court exercised its powers under Section 11 of the Judicature Act to quash both the sentence and the entire procee…
Source excerpt
omundanihare v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 176 of 2017) [2023] UGCA 169 (7 June 2023)
The trial Judge failed to deduct the period the appellant spent on remand from the sentence, contrary to Article 23(8) of the Constitution and established case law. This omission constitutes an error in principle and renders the sentence illegal and a nullity. The Court of Appeal set aside the original sentence and, exercising its powers under Section 11 of the Judicature Act, sentenced the appellant afresh to 24 years' imprisonment, deducting the 3 years and 8 months spent on remand, resulting in a final sentence of 20 years and 4 months' imprisonment effective from the date of conviction.
Source excerpt
Machera v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 035/2017) [2022] AfCHPR 19 (22 September 2022)
The African Court held that Tanzania did not violate fair trial or other Charter rights in Machera’s criminal case and dismissed all reparations claims.
