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: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 02:51 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

20 Feb 2023

Constitutional Law [2023] UGCC 6

Center for Public Interest Law Limited v Attorney General

Center for Public Interest Law Limited v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 29 of 2019) [2023] UGCC 6 (20 February 2023)

Court: Constitutional Court of Uganda
Case number: Constitutional Petition No. 29 of 2019
Judge: Monica K. Mugenyi, JCC, Gashirabake, JCC, Madrama, JCC, Musoke, JCC, Egonda-Ntende, JCC

The court held that Section 25(1) of the Uganda Wildlife Act, 2019 is not unconstitutional as it mandates the Minister to consult the relevant local government council, which acts as an agent of the people, thereby ensuring public participation as required by the Constitution. The court found that the factual basis of the petition—that the East Madi Wildlife Reserve was established on land belonging to the Apaa community in Amuru District—was not supported by evidence. A government survey established that the reserve is wholly within Adjumani District, not Amuru, and thus the Apaa community w…

Source excerpt

Public Participation
Customary Land Rights
Compulsory Acquisition
Wildlife Conservation
Local Government Consultation

Read case analysis

26 Mar 2022

Criminal Law [2022] UGHCCRD 125

Uganda v Ssekajja and Another

Uganda v Ssekajja and Another (Criminal Appeal 112 of 2016) [2022] UGHCCRD 125 (26 March 2022)

Court: HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
Case number: Criminal Appeal 112 of 2016
Judge: Elubu, J

The court found that while the respondents physically carried the box containing protected species, the prosecution failed to prove exclusive control, authority, or intention to own the contents. The evidence established that the respondents were merely transporters for a third party who fled at the time of arrest. The prosecution did not demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents exercised dominion over the parrots or held them as their own property. The essential ingredient of possession, as required by law for conviction under the Uganda Wildlife Act and Game Preservation and…