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
Mumbere v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 209 of 2015) [2023] UGCA 275 (16 October 2023)
The Court of Appeal allowed a murder appeal, finding the circumstantial evidence insufficient and the trial judge’s handling of assessors’ opinions fatally flawed.
Oroma and Anor v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 192 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCRD 78 (13 June 2023)
The court held that while Section 106(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act generally provides that sentences commence from the date they are pronounced, Section 122(1) specifically requires that sentences imposed upon subsequent convictions must be served consecutively unless the court orders otherwise. In this case, the applicants were convicted and sentenced in two separate trials for distinct offences, with no evidence that the charges arose out of the same transaction or series of acts. The sentencing courts did not order the sentences to run concurrently. Therefore, the default legal posit…
Source excerpt
Oroma and Another v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 192 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCRD 61 (13 June 2023)
The court held that while Section 106(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act provides that sentences commence from the date they are pronounced, this is subject to other provisions of the Act. Section 122(1) specifically provides that where a person is convicted and sentenced in a subsequent case before the expiration of a previous sentence, the sentences are to run consecutively unless the court directs otherwise. In this case, the applicants were convicted and sentenced in two separate and distinct trials, with no evidence that the offences arose from the same transaction or series of acts. The…
Source excerpt
Col. (Rtd.) Dr. Kiiza Besigye v Uganda (Criminal Misc. Application No. 228 of 2005) [2005] UGCA 100 (25 November 2005)
The court held that, in light of the constitutional provisions and the request by the respondent, it is mandatory to refer the question of the interpretation and application of Article 23(6) of the Constitution to the Constitutional Court. Pending the outcome of that reference, the applicant is entitled to interim bail, given the mitigating factors in his favor, the sufficiency of sureties, and the paramount importance of liberty. The court recognized the gravity of the charges but found that the applicant's circumstances and constitutional rights justified interim release on stringent condit…
Source excerpt
