Uganda
Sign in
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
4 court collections
Last checked

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal Law [2008] UGHC 137

Uganda v Kobshusheshe Kareveri (Crim.Csc.No.56 of 2007) (Crim.Csc.No.56 of 2007)

Uganda v Kobshusheshe Kareveri (Crim.Csc.No.56 of 2007) (Crim.Csc.No.56 of 2007) [2008] UGHC 137 (1 September 2008)

The High Court held that a charge and caution statement was voluntarily made and could be admitted, rejecting claims of assault, threats, and coercion.

  • Confession Evidence
  • Voluntariness Of Statements
  • Police Conduct
  • Admissibility Of Evidence
  • Confession-evidence
  • Voluntariness-of-statements
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2003] UGHC 70

Uganda v Yusuf Gowon & Ors (High Court Criminal Session Case No. 70 of 2002)

Uganda v Yusuf Gowon & Ors (High Court Criminal Session Case No. 70 of 2002) [2003] UGHC 70 (20 August 2003)

The High Court excluded a Lugbara statement after finding it was not voluntarily made and had been improperly recorded during a trial within a trial.

  • Admissibility Of Confessions
  • Voluntariness Of Statements
  • Trial Within Trial
  • Burden Of Proof
  • Police Conduct
  • Evidence Act Application
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2003] UGSC 17

Oketch David v Uganda

Oketch David v Uganda [2003] UGSC 17 (17 April 2003)

The Supreme Court of Uganda upheld David Oketch’s conviction, holding that his confession was voluntary and that minor inconsistencies in testimony did not undermine the case.

  • Confession Evidence
  • Admissibility Of Confessions
  • Voluntariness Of Statements
  • Identification Evidence
  • Inconsistencies In Testimony
  • Confession-evidence
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2002] UGSC 10

Ssegonja Paul v Uganda

Ssegonja Paul v Uganda [2002] UGSC 10 (10 January 2002)

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's confession was properly admitted as voluntary, with sufficient time having elapsed between the alleged torture and the making of the statement. The procedure of recording the confession in English through an interpreter was not prejudicial, as the statement was read back and signed. The evidence of recent possession of the stolen car by the appellant, corroborated by police testimony, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Minor discrepancies between the confession and prosecution evidence did not affect the substance or truth of the confession.…

  • Confession Evidence
  • Recent Possession
  • Corroboration
  • Admissibility Of Evidence
  • Voluntariness Of Statements
  • Procedural Fairness
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2001] UGCA 4

Turahi Mugambe & anoer v Uganda (Cr..Appeal No.48 of 1998)

Turahi Mugambe & anoer v Uganda (Cr..Appeal No.48 of 1998) [2001] UGCA 4 (24 May 2001)

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misdirected himself by admitting the confessions based on their relevance rather than first making a specific finding on their voluntariness, as required by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The judge failed to properly analyse the conflicting evidence regarding allegations of torture and did not provide adequate reasoning for finding the confessions voluntary. The weighing scale found in the first appellant's house was not sufficiently identified as the stolen property, and the possibility that it was planted or brought by someone else was not exc…

  • Admissibility Of Confessions
  • Trial Within A Trial
  • Doctrine Of Recent Possession
  • Evaluation Of Circumstantial Evidence
  • Voluntariness Of Statements
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [1993] UGHC 84

Uganda v Isoke

Uganda v Isoke (Criminal Session Case 190 of 1992) [1993] UGHC 84 (21 December 1993)

The High Court held that the accused’s cautioned statement was voluntary and properly recorded, and admitted it in evidence despite his claim of coercion.

  • Confession Admissibility
  • Evidence Act Application
  • Voluntariness Of Statements
  • Police Procedure
  • Accused Rights
  • Confession-admissibility
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [1956] EACA 20

Ali and Another v The Queen

Ali and Another v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1956; Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1956) [1956] EACA 20 (1 January 1956)

The court held that extra-judicial statements cannot be admitted before asking the accused whether they object to admissibility and, if disputed, trying voluntariness first.

  • Admissibility Of Evidence
  • Extra Judicial Statements
  • Voluntariness Of Statements
  • Trial Procedure
  • Confessions
  • Procedural Fairness
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [1951] EACA 251

Ajwang v Rex

Ajwang v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1951) [1951] EACA 251 (1 January 1951)

The court held that a confession’s voluntariness must be determined after hearing both sides, but the improper admission of the statement did not overturn the murder conviction.

  • Admissibility Of Confessions
  • Voluntariness Of Statements
  • Murder Trial Procedure
  • Evidentiary Practice
  • Admissibility-of-confessions
  • Voluntariness-of-statements
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [1949] EACA 41

Rex v Mulindwa

Rex v Mulindwa (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1949) [1949] EACA 41 (1 January 1949)

The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa upheld a murder conviction, addressing the admissibility and voluntariness of confessions and the effect of the Judges' Rules.

  • Admissibility Of Confessions
  • Voluntariness Of Statements
  • Malice Aforethought
  • Poisoning
  • Judges Rules
  • Corroboration Of Confessions
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [1948] EACA 48

Rex v Kasule and Others

Rex v Kasule and Others (Criminal Appeals Nos. 184, 185 and 186 of 1948 (Consolidated)) [1948] EACA 48 (1 January 1948)

The Court of Appeal held that the statements made by the first and third appellants to the gombolola chief were not voluntary and should not have been admitted in evidence. The Court reasoned that the circumstances—being brought bound before a person in authority and being told 'Tell me how you killed your father'—amounted to a peremptory order, not a mere request, and would lead an accused to believe he was compelled to speak. The absence of a caution and the trial judge's own finding that the accused probably did not consider he could remain silent further supported the conclusion that the…

  • Murder
  • Confession Admissibility
  • Voluntariness Of Statements
  • Evidence Law
  • Role Of Persons In Authority
Read case analysis

About this JurisAssist collection

Uganda decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.