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
Izimba v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 1 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 18 (15 January 2025)
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, quashed an illegal sentence for driving without a permit, and reduced the second sentence after finding sentencing errors.
Uganda v John Okumu Bismark & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2017) [2020] UGHC 137 (14 August 2020)
High Court criminal appeal on careless driving and causation. The court upheld the acquittal of the second respondent because the evidence did not prove he was driving at the time.
Bossa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 056 of 2008) [2015] UGHCCRD 35 (17 March 2015)
The court found that the trial magistrate had properly evaluated the evidence, particularly the corroborated testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which established that the complainant was standing at the side of the road when he was knocked by the appellant. The appellant's claim of driving at 40kmph was unsupported by evidence, and the circumstances suggested he was overtaking at a higher speed. The appellant failed to exercise the care and attention required of a prudent driver. The court concluded that the conviction was based on sufficient evidence and that the sentence was appropri…
Source excerpt
Namara v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 030 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCRD 96 (19 February 2014)
The High Court found that the trial Magistrate substantially complied with the procedure for recording a plea of guilty as required by Section 124 of the Magistrates Courts Act. The appellant was informed of the charges, pleaded guilty, and admitted the facts as read and explained, making the plea unequivocal. The Court held that the appellant fully understood and admitted the offences, and there was no material to suggest otherwise. However, the Court found that the trial Magistrate erred in sentencing by failing to consider mitigating factors and by imposing a custodial sentence without an…
Source excerpt
Kagere Ibrahim Vs. Uganda (Crim Appeal No. 03 Of 2010) (Crim Appeal No. 03 of 2010) [2010] UGHC 116 (21 July 2010)
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal after finding that the plea was not properly taken because the charge did not adequately explain the ingredient of reckless driving.
Bakwata v Uganda (HCT-04-CR-CN-0027/2002) [2008] UGHCCRD 60 (7 August 2008)
The High Court upheld a traffic conviction but corrected an unlawful sentence below the statutory minimum on the second count.
Asiimwe Gideon v Uganda (CRIMINAL REVISION NO 08 OF 2006) (CRIMINAL REVISION NO 08 OF 2006) [2008] UGHC 5 (15 May 2008)
The High Court held that section 159 of Uganda’s Traffic and Road Safety Act is directory, not mandatory, and dismissed the revision application.
Gichohi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2004) [2004] UGHCCRD 9 (8 June 2004)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate failed to follow the proper procedure for recording a plea of guilty as required by law. The charge was not translated to the accused, and the accused's statement 'I have understood the charge. It is true.' did not amount to an unequivocal admission of guilt. The trial magistrate also erred by allowing the State to provide additional facts after the accused's admission and by making prejudicial statements before conviction. Furthermore, the sentence imposed was illegal and excessive, as the law required a fine to be considered first, especially f…
Source excerpt
Isingoma Asafu v Uganda - High Court Criminal Appeal No. MSK-00-CR-CV-0009 of 1999 (High Court Criminal Appeal No. MSK -00- CR CV-0009 of 1999) [1999] UGHC 5 (25 August 1999)
The High Court quashed a conviction for count 1 because the charge and conviction did not match, but upheld count 2 for causing bodily injury by reckless driving.
Uganda v Omach Richard (Criminal Revision No. MG. 1/95) [1995] UGHC 76 (18 December 1995)
The trial magistrate erred in law by not properly putting the facts of the case to the accused as required by established plea procedure, and by imposing a default sentence of 30 days imprisonment for a fine of 1,000/=, which exceeds the statutory maximum of 7 days for such a fine. However, given the simplicity of the offence and absence of prejudice to the accused, the conviction is upheld. The default sentence is set aside and substituted with the lawful maximum of 7 days imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.
Source excerpt
