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 Muwonge & 13 Others (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 8 of 2023) [2024] UGHCICD 9 (27 February 2024)
The High Court’s International Crimes Division confirmed terrorism-related charges against some accused, accepted evidence of bomb possession and ADF membership, and acquitted A3 to A7.
Uganda v Muwonge & 11 Others (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 1 of 2019) [2023] UGHCICD 14 (17 May 2023)
The High Court ICD confirmed charges for child trafficking, terrorism, and support for ADF against several accused, but dismissed terrorist-financing counts.
Uganda v Kiyemba (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 1 of 2023) [2023] UGHCICD 12 (2 May 2023)
The High Court ICD confirmed charges against Jamal Kiyemba for alleged ADF-related terrorism offences, finding sufficient evidence at pre-trial stage.
Uganda v wakwaya (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 1 of 2022) [2023] UGHCICD 2 (13 April 2023)
The accused was granted amnesty under the Amnesty Act, 2000, for crimes committed in furtherance of armed rebellion as a member of the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF). The charges of aggravated trafficking in children and belonging to a terrorist organisation arose from the same transaction and were committed in the course of the war or rebellion. The amnesty certificate and supporting documentation were presented to the court and not contested by the prosecution. Article 29(10) of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Amnesty Act prohibit prosecution for offences covered by a pardon. Section…
Source excerpt
Kalule v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 001 of 2018.) [2018] UGHCICD 1 (10 April 2018)
The High Court’s International Crimes Division granted Dr. Ismail Kalule bail pending trial on terrorism-related charges, imposing financial, reporting, passport, and conduct conditions.
Musanzi v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 1956) [1956] EACA 12 (1 January 1956)
The Court of Appeal held that a terrorism charge under the Emergency Regulations was defective because it did not properly allege custody-based circumstances and covered too long a period.
