Lawpoint Uganda

The Court reaffirmed the principles governing the standard of proof in criminal trials, drawing from Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) and Woolmington v DPP (1935). Identification evidence, especially under difficult conditions, must meet stringent tests laid out in Bogere Moses v Uganda. Medical evidence and credible, consistent testimony were central to securing a conviction for rape under Sections 110 and 111 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 120.

Informed consent entails the duty of a doctor to warn his/her patient of risk inherent in the treatment which he is proposing to enable the patient make a rational choice of whether or not to undergo the said treatment. This was discussed at length in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board[2] where Mrs Montgomery, who suffered from insulin dependent diabetes mellitus went in for a vaginal delivery which was unsuccessful leading to a symphysiotomy. After the birth, the baby was

The Court referenced a 2020 Bank of Uganda statement, confirming that foreign lenders not accepting deposits from the Ugandan public are not regulated under the FIA. These foreign lenders operate under the laws of their home countries and international contractual principles—not the Ugandan FIA. Therefore, the Court held that there is no law in Uganda forbidding persons from borrowing from entities or institutions outside Uganda, and that such a restriction would be unreasona

a spouse is a qualified relative under Section 61(1) of the Act, and may be appointed as a personal representative of a person judicially declared to have mental illness. This is especially pertinent in situations where no prior arrangements—such as a power of attorney—have been made.

Exceptional circumstances like advanced age do not automatically entitle an accused person to bail. Courts will decline bail where there is credible evidence of a flight risk, and all requirements under Sections 15 and 16 of the TIA, as well as the 2022 Bail Guidelines, must be strictly met. Public safety and justice for victims remain central to judicial discretion in bail applications.

Entities, whether domiciled in Uganda or not, that process personal data of Ugandans are bound by Uganda’s Data Protection and Privacy Act, Cap. 97. Registration with the PDPO, designation of a Data Protection Officer (DPO), and compliance with cross-border data transfer requirements are mandatory statutory obligations. The absence of a gazetted exemption or internal compliance framework does not excuse non-compliance.

Possession and long-term occupancy do not translate into lawful ownership in the absence of formal legal authority or distribution of the estate.

The Court warned that alleged transmissions or bequests of land, particularly within family structures, must be supported by credible and properly admitted documentary evidence. Hence serving as a benchmark for handling inheritance-related land conflicts and reiterates the appellate court's mandate to re-evaluate evidence afresh where trial courts have failed to do so.

A change from Catholicism to Pentecostalism does not, in the eyes of the law, constitute a change of religion within the meaning of Section 4(b) of the Marriage and Divorce Act. Both are professions of Christianity.

Drawing from the influential Canadian case of Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia,[2] the Court stated that equality is not synonymous with uniformity. The legal frameworks governing civil and customary marriages are not interchangeable; they are distinct regimes grounded in different legal and social philosophies. To apply the same criminal sanctions to both would be to ignore these foundational differences.

The court reaffirmed the principles laid down in Arvind Patel v Uganda, including the applicant’s character, whether the offence involved personal violence, the prospects of success of the appeal, and potential delay in determination.

While the majority upheld the re-election of President Museveni, Kanyeihamba was among the few who dissented. His opinion, delivered with unflinching clarity, declared the election fatally flawed by state-sponsored malpractice. He voted to annul the results, a decision that cost him dearly, including Uganda’s slot on the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. But he bore that cost without regret. For Kanyeihamba, principle always came before promotion.

The court concluded that, although the exact monetary contributions could not be established with certainty, the evidence showed a shared intention and effort to establish a joint home.

Worse still, Section 26 of the Succession Act treats separation more harshly than even divorce. Under current law, a woman who is estranged but still legally married may be disinherited, while a divorced spouse may receive a more favourable legal assessment. This inconsistency entrenches patriarchal assumptions about a woman’s worth being tied solely to her marital status.

In Semenya’s case, the real injustice was not merely the content of the DSD Regulations, but the absence of any court willing to fully grapple with what those rules meant for her body and her being.

The Court emphasised that the suit land is part of the intestate estate. Rights of occupation and eventual inheritance are governed by Sections 22(1) and (3) of the Succession Act. The Court further added that no party can claim ownership or exclusive rights absent a formal grant of letters of administration.

This ruling sets a precedent that employers must formalise labour relations or face legal liability irrespective of registration status. For unregistered businesses such as small workshops or agricultural firms, the decision sends a clear warning: informal status does not extinguish legal responsibility.

In the employment context, where an employer has benefited from the labour of an individual under an employment arrangement, it may not escape liability by pleading technical non-existence or lack of incorporation. 

The appellant challenged the admission of Police Form 24A without proper explanation or consent, arguing it violated Section 66(2)-(3) of the Trial on Indictments Act (TIA), and Articles 28(1) & 44(c) of the Constitution. The Court applied the principle from Abdu Ngobi v Uganda [1992] UGSC 15, holding that serious contradictions must be resolved in favour of the accused.

Every appeal shall be commenced by a notice in writing... lodged with the registrar within fourteen days of the date of judgment or order from which the appeal is preferred.

The Court emphasized that new matters not raised in the trial or first appellate court cannot be raised on second appeal, and reiterated the principle that a trial court must be fully satisfied of the voluntariness of any confession before relying on it to convict.

Uganda faces some parallel concerns in its own economy. Monopoly control and platform dominance have shown up in sectors like telecommunications, banking, and digital finance. Until recently, Uganda’s framework for tackling such issues was fragmented and often weak. For example, telecom competition was governed by the Uganda Communications Act Cap 106 (as then), now Cap. 103 and its Fair Competition Regulations (2005).

The Court emphasized that “equity will not perfect an imperfect gift,” but in this case, possession and development by the Respondent amounted to effective delivery and acceptance.

The Court emphasized that affidavits are evidence and do not necessarily require authorization from co-parties. Modern precedent dispels the notion that lack of authorization renders affidavits incurably defective.