Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 1 court collection
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:27 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

7 Aug 2023

Criminal Law [2023] UGCA 200

Semaganda and Another v Uganda

Semaganda and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 456 of 2016) [2023] UGCA 200 (7 August 2023)

Court: Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number: Criminal Appeal 456 of 2016
Judge: Buteera, DCJ, Gashirabake, JA, Kihika ,JA

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly relied on circumstantial evidence, which was corroborated by multiple prosecution witnesses and was incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the appellants. The appellants' alibi was effectively rebutted by the prosecution's evidence, and their conduct and family history supported the inference of guilt. The claim that the 2nd appellant was a minor was dismissed based on undisputed medical evidence showing he was 20 years old at the time of the offence. Regarding sentencing, the court held that while it was ina…

Source excerpt

Murder
Circumstantial Evidence
Sentencing Guidelines
Trial Of Minors
Remand Period
Aggravating And Mitigating Factors

Read case analysis

18 Jan 2023

Criminal Law [2023] UGCA 13

Okori v Uganda

Okori v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2018) [2023] UGCA 13 (18 January 2023)

Court: Court of Appeal of Uganda
Case number: Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2018
Judge: Madrama, JA, Obura, JA, Bamugemereire, JA

The Court of Appeal found that although the plea-taking process was ultimately recorded, the trial judge failed to properly determine the appellant's age at the time of the offence. The medical report presented a range (21–23 years) at the time of examination in 2016, which, when adjusted for the period spent on remand, indicated the appellant was likely under 18 years old in February 2013. The charge sheet and other evidence supported this conclusion. The trial judge did not conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the appellant's age using all available sources as required by the Children Act.…