Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search
background image
profile image

Court of Appeal of Uganda

The Court of Appeal is the second highest court in the land.  It came into being following the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution, and the enactment of the Judicature Statute, 1996. Article 134 of the Constitution established the structure of the Court of Appeal.

While presiding over matters , it is duly constituted when it consists of an odd number of not less than three (3) justices of the Court of Appeal. It is this court that constitutes itself into a Constitutional Court in accordance with the Constitution to hear constitutional cases.

The Constitutional Court consists of fifteen (15) justices and handles the matters, issues or cases concerning the interpretation of the Constitution  When presiding over a constitutional matter, there must be a quorum of at least five (5) justices of the court.

Physical address
Twed Towers along Kafu Road, Nakasero,Kampala.
Visit website
https://www.judiciary.go.ug/data/smenu/77//Court%20of%20Appeal.html
9 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
9 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
July 1999
Non- Performing Assets Recovery Trust (NPART ) v Amen Economic Stone Quarry Company Limited (Civil Appeal 18 of 1998) [1999] UGCA 57 (29 July 1999)
Issuing bank exerted undue influence and failed to verify documentary conformity, causing liability for delivery of wrong machinery.
Banking law – Letters of credit – duty of issuing bank to verify conformity of documents; undue influence – bank officer pressuring purchaser’s agent; negligence in documentary payment – liability for loss of wrong goods; pre-shipment inspection discrepancies (SGS report, invoices, bill of lading); typographical error alleged as fraud; seizure of secured asset for loan default; costs apportionment on mixed outcome.
 29 July 1999
Semambo C. & Anor V Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1998) [1999] UGCA 7 (29 July 1999)
A judge must decide only whether a prima facie case exists, not pronounce guilt before the accused is heard.
Criminal procedure – no case to answer – role of the trial judge at close of prosecution’s case – prima facie case vs. finding of guilt – misdirection/mistrial – section 71 Trial on Indictments Decree – retrial ordered.
 29 July 1999
Stephen Karekona v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.10 of 1998) [1999] UGCA 15 (29 July 1999)
Trial judge erred in evaluating prosecution alone, but appellate re‑evaluation found overwhelming evidence to uphold conviction.
Criminal law – burden of proof – improper evaluation of prosecution case in isolation shifts burden to accused; trial judgment severable from trial proceedings; appellate re‑evaluation permitted where trial proceedings are regular; alibi and minor contradictions; prejudicial remarks by trial judge.
 29 July 1999
Haji Asuman Busulwa Ssalongo v Uganda (Misc.App.No.11 of 1999) [1999] UGCA 22 (28 July 1999)
Advocate's failure to obtain a certificate justified extension of time; applicant ordered to file within seven days.
Court of Appeal Rules, r.4 – extension of time to apply for certificate to appeal – sufficient reason required – advocate’s neglect not imputed to client – delay caused by counsel justifies extension; no costs order.
 28 July 1999
Obadia Kuku V Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1998) [1999] UGCA 5 (28 July 1999)
Appeal allowed: conviction quashed where witness contradictions supported accidental discharge, making murder verdict unsafe.
Criminal law – murder – evaluation of evidence – material contradictions in prosecution witnesses about presence/use of a hoe and appellant’s statements – accidental discharge as defence – conviction unsafe where contradictions support accidental killing.
 28 July 1999
Prof.G.S.Z Senyonga,Namuddu christine v Uganda(application to extend time) (Misc. Application No. 10 of 1999) [1999] UGCA 17 (28 July 1999)
Delay caused by counsel’s failure to apply for a certificate justified an extension of time to apply for the certificate.
Extension of time – Rules 4, 40(1) and 42(1) – requirement of sufficient reason related to delay; Advocate’s default – delay by counsel constitutes sufficient reason; Judgment read by Registrar – effect on informal applications.
 28 July 1999
Prof. G.S.Z. Ssenyonga and Another v Uganda (Misc. Application No. 10 of 1999) [1999] UGCA 89 (28 July 1999)
Delay caused by counsel’s default is sufficient reason to grant extension of time to apply for a certificate to appeal.
Civil procedure – extension of time – rule 4 – sufficient reason required; Counsel’s default – fault of advocate as sufficient reason for client's extension; Procedural requirements for certificate to appeal to Supreme Court; Evidentiary role of affidavits in applications for extension.
 28 July 1999
Prof. G. S. Z Ssenyonga and Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 10 of 1999) [1999] UGCA 53 (28 July 1999)
Extension of time granted to apply for certificate where delay was caused by the applicants’ advocates, not the applicants.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Rule 4 – Delay caused by advocate’s default constitutes sufficient reason for extension to apply for certificate to appeal to Supreme Court; judgment read by Registrar relevant to timing.
 28 July 1999
Impressa Ingfortunato Federici v Dr Wambete and Another (Civil Appeal 28 of 1998) [1999] UGCA 59 (22 July 1999)
Appeal partly allowed: inadmissible hearsay medical report influenced an excessive damages award, reduced on appeal.
Civil appeal — Personal injuries arising from a motor-vehicle accident — Admissibility of medical evidence — hearsay medical report inadmissible — proof of loss of hearing and speech on balance of probabilities — assessment of general damages — appellate interference only where award is based on wrong principle or is inordinately high/low — reduction of general damages.
 22 July 1999