Lawpoint Uganda

To successfully raise an alibi, the defense must effectively demonstrate that the accused had no opportunity to commit the crime. A simple denial is insufficient against compelling circumstantial evidence.

While citing Section 136 (6) of the Children Act Cap 62, which states that a child shall not be remanded in an adult prison, court declared the trial of the applicant illegal and discontinued all criminal proceedings against him. This was because the applicant AJ, A6 on the indictment was remanded in prison on November 11, 2024 and he had been held in the two Ugandan government prisons of Kisoro and Ndorwa, in Kisoro and Kabale districts respectively.

The Court held that the petitioner did not fall within the exception set out by the Supreme Court's ruling in Kabaziguruka that allowed for the retrospective application of the unconstitutionality finding, as her conviction and sentence were no longer "being challenged in a court of law" within the context of the military justice system or its ordinary appeals.

The Court deemed the prosecution witnesses “credible and believable” and found “sufficient corroboration” in their testimonies and documentary evidence.Conversely, the defence was described as “a half-hearted denial” lacking “logical consistency,” consistent with the standard in Ojera v. Labeja, Civil Appeal No. 0020 of 2013.

The test for a prima facie case, as per Rananlal T. Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332, is whether the evidence could convict if no defense is offered. This was reinforced by Uganda v Drasiku (Criminal Case No. 14 of 2013) and Uganda v Bwambale Nathan and 2 Others (HCT-25-CR-SC-0017-2024), emphasizing that a mere "scintilla" of worthless evidence is insufficient.

While the Applicant argued he had been detained beyond the 180 days under Article 23(6)(c) and Paragraph 10(1) of the Bail Guidelines, the Court found otherwise, noting he had been committed within six months of arrest. The Judge acknowledged conflicting High Court precedents — Kato Henry v Uganda [2025] UGHCCRD 21 (Muwata, J) and Mulema Ali alias Frank v Uganda [2025] UGHC 717 (Lamuno, J) — but emphasized a pragmatic approach: “Bail in whatever form, be it discretionary or m

The Court emphasized under section 3(e) and (g) of the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice Directions), 2022 that the purpose for this guidelines is "promoting the balancing of the rights of the accused, against the public interest and the rights of the complainants. Court further cited the case of Mivumbi Richard v Uganda Crim. Misc Appl. No. 29 of 2025 and stated that it is important for both applicants and the prosecution to carefully evaluate

Contempt of Court may be classified as either (1) Criminal Contempt, consisting of words or acts which impede or interfere with the administration of justice, or which create a substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced; or (2) contempt in procedure, otherwise known as civil contempt, consisting of disobedience to the judgment, orders or other process of the Court and involving a private injury..

The Court emphasized that assessors must exercise caution when recommending conviction based solely on the testimony of a single identifying witness. Citing Abdallah bin Wendo and Another v R (1953) 20 EACA 166, the Court stated that the evidence of a single witness regarding identification must be scrutinized with the greatest care. Furthermore, the Court held that the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime must be carefully evaluated to determine whether reli

The Court accepted that crimes like robbery often occur at night, relying on a single identifying witness. Citing Abdullah Nabulere & 2 Others v Uganda (Cr. App. No. 9 of 1978), the Court noted that the reliability of such evidence depends on the conditions and the witness’s prior familiarity with the accused. The complainant had known the accused for over a year and identified him by moonlight—rendering the identification credible.

The Court cited Section 7 of the Penal Code Act, which protects persons acting under an honest claim of right. However, both appellants admitted lacking any written proof of ownership, and even acknowledged that their grandmother had given the land to the complainant. The Court held that their claim was dishonest and unsupported, and thus not protected under Section 7. The trial magistrate had properly dismissed this defence, following authorities such as Opio Enrico v Uganda

From comments, the court observed rising sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) due to economic, cultural, and awareness issues, noting defilement spikes during COVID-19 school closures. It reaffirmed trauma prevalence from conflicts and domestic abuse, citing a 2022 study (Opio et al.) showing 22.9% mental disorder prevalence in Uganda. The court observed legal gaps, urging “aggravated rape” for vulnerable victims and mental health referrals under the Mental Health Act, Cap

This case reinforces that procedural defects will not automatically nullify proceedings unless they cause injustice. Sentencing courts must deduct remand time to avoid illegality, while appellate courts will correct reliance on inadmissible evidence but still uphold convictions if other evidence suffices. Compensation remains discretionary but must be reasonable and justified.

An accused need not participate in all stages of trafficking to be guilty; involvement in any part of the chain (e.g., planning, recruitment) suffices (Muhwezi v. Uganda, 2022; Bernard Onyandi v. Republic, [2018] eKLR). On aggravated trafficking in children, the Court, drawing from Bernard Onyandi v Republic [2018] eKLR, clarified that liability arises even if an accused only participates in one stage of the trafficking process. Finally, while departing from the assessors’ op

The Court observed that both the LC II Committee and the complainant supported bail, with the complainant explicitly stating the Applicant was not involved in the murder. This strengthened the Applicant’s case and assured the Court of minimal risk of community hostility or interference with investigations.

The Court affirmed that the IGG has constitutional and statutory authority to prosecute corruption and theft of public funds, even against private persons, without DPP consent. An indictment need not be signed personally by the IGG, as long as it is signed by an authorized officer of the Inspectorate. The indictment here was valid.

The Court further cited the case of Ochit Labwor Patrick v Uganda, Criminal App No. 15 of 1998, stating that the proper and most appropriate approach is to amend the charges and charge persons who perform sexual acts with children with the offence of either simple defilement or aggravated defilement. However, the Court emphasized that this statement is subject to cautious interpretation. In the absence of amendments to the written law, prosecutors still retain the discretion

The court held that Guidelines 10(2) and 10(3) of the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022 are consistent with Articles 2, 23(6)(b) and 23(6)(c) of the Constitution. They lawfully guide magistrates’ courts that only the High Court may grant bail for offences triable exclusively by it.

The Court emphasised that it must closely interrogate the credibility of witness testimony where the conditions of observation are questionable. This duty is not merely procedural but goes to the heart of safeguarding against miscarriages of justice. Poor-quality identification evidence, especially in conditions that may impair accuracy, should trigger heightened judicial scrutiny.

Despite proving the offence, the Court accepted the defence of insanity based on: Medical reports from Butabika and Murchison Bay Hospitals confirming schizophrenia and ongoing mental illness treatment. The Court invoked section 49, which allows for a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity where evidence shows the accused lacked criminal responsibility at the time of the offence.

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.

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.

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.

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.