|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2000 |
|
|
Identification by a known victim under moonlight and prolonged close contact upheld, destroying the alibi; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Defilement; identification evidence by single identifying witness – reliability factors: prior acquaintance, illumination, close range, and duration; alleged contradictions – materiality; alibi – destroyed by credible identification; admissibility/weight of alleged confession.
|
19 December 2000 |
| November 2000 |
|
|
Court extends filing time for appeal due to counsel's negligence but diligent subsequent action.
Extension of time - Appeal procedure - Negligence of counsel - Sufficient reason - Procedural diligence.
|
30 November 2000 |
|
Court upheld single-witness identification and rejected alibi where familiarity, lighting, and appellant's lies supported conviction.
* Criminal law – Identification by a single witness – validity assessed by prior acquaintance, distance, lighting, duration and voice recognition.* Criminal law – Alibi – burden remains on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt but alibi may be rejected if appellant gives inconsistent or deliberate false evidence.* Lies by accused may be used as corroborative indicators of guilt when properly evaluated by the trial court.
|
29 November 2000 |
|
First appellant's convictions upheld on credible ID and possession of stolen goods; second appellant's conviction quashed for insufficient evidence.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – adequacy of lighting and credibility of eyewitness testimony – corroboration by possession of recently stolen property.
* Criminal law – Possession of stolen property shortly after theft – permissible inference of participation in the robbery where no satisfactory explanation offered.
* Criminal law – Sufficiency of evidence – conviction unsafe where sole link is unproduced property and no witness identification.
|
28 November 2000 |
|
Conviction for defilement can be upheld on credible eyewitness corroboration despite absence of medical evidence.
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Defilement – Medical evidence desirable but not mandatory – Conviction may be sustained on credible, independent eyewitness corroboration.
|
27 November 2000 |
|
Victim and eyewitness testimony can suffice to prove rape without medical evidence; 15-year sentence upheld.
* Criminal law – Rape – Proof of sexual intercourse – Medical evidence preferable but not essential; credible victim and eyewitness testimony may suffice. * Criminal evidence – Non-expert observations (police) of semen – corroborative but not determinative. * Rape – Force and penetration may be established without external injuries. * Sentencing – 15-year term upheld as not excessive given public place and presence of a child witness.
|
15 November 2000 |
|
Confession to LC officials was inadmissible, but strong circumstantial and medical evidence upheld the murder conviction.
Criminal law – admissibility of confessions – section 24(1) Evidence Act – statements to non-police LC officials inadmissible; voluntariness and inducement. Criminal law – circumstantial evidence – motive, lies, concealment and medical evidence (strangulation) can sustain murder conviction. Criminal law – accidental death defence disproved by medical and circumstantial evidence; no provocation to reduce to manslaughter.
|
14 November 2000 |
|
Court upheld identification evidence and dismissed appeal; formalised death sentence while noting sentencing irregularity.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – In‑court identification and identification parade – Failure of primary witness to attend parade not necessarily fatal where scene conditions favourable; Recent possession – requires produced items to rely on doctrine; Sentence irregularity – appellate court may formalise sentence under judicature statute.
|
5 November 2000 |
|
Conviction quashed where identification rested on hearsay and prosecution failed to disprove the accused’s alibi.
Criminal law – Defilement – conviction without victim’s testimony – identification based on a third party’s account – hearsay inadmissible for identification; Alibi – prosecution’s duty to disprove alibi – failure to discharge burden warrants acquittal.
|
2 November 2000 |
|
Appellate court affirmed convictions for defilement and incest despite minor summing-up omissions and non‑fatal evidential inconsistencies.
Criminal law – Defilement and incest – ingredients of offences (age, intercourse, participation, blood relationship); Evidence – medical report versus oral testimony; Criminal procedure – summing up to assessors and misdirection; Appeal – appellate review where trial judge misdirected but evidence sufficiently proves guilt.
|
1 November 2000 |
| October 2000 |
|
|
A clear denial of indebtedness can defeat summary judgment, but intended counter-claims must be pleaded with particularity.
* Civil procedure – summary judgment (Order 33 Rules 2 & 3) – defendant must disclose a bona fide triable issue pleaded with sufficient particularity to appear genuine; general or vague denials insufficient. * Counter-claim – to justify leave to defend must arise from same subject matter and be pleaded with particulars, including value and that it exceeds plaintiff’s claim. * Appeal – High Court erred in entering summary judgment where defendant raised a clear denial of indebtedness.
|
27 October 2000 |
|
A party’s clear denial of a debt in summary suit proceedings entitles it to unconditional leave to defend the suit.
Summary procedure – unconditional leave to defend – sufficiency of general denial – requirement for particulars of defence – when summary judgment inappropriate – summary judgment set aside where denial raises triable issue.
|
27 October 2000 |
|
Appeal dismissed: trial judge's credibility findings, rejection of appellant's expert, and respondent's counterclaim award were upheld.
Negligence – credibility of eyewitnesses; departure from pleadings – fair notice and denial of justice; failure to call witness – no automatic adverse inference; expert evidence – relevance and impartiality; proof of special damages – role of qualified witness and effect of lack of cross‑examination on exchange rate.
|
23 October 2000 |
|
Appellant guarantor liable on an on‑demand guarantee; delays, telexes and alleged frustration did not discharge liability.
* Contract law – choice of law and formalities; corporate seal not required where English law governs and statute applies
* Guarantees – extent of guarantor’s liability; clause creating personal, on-demand guarantee upheld
* Contract variation – extension of drawdown/repayment dates not substantial or prejudicial where bona fide and conditioned by precedent events
* Waiver/demand – failure to contemporaneously demand each instalment did not waive guarantor’s liability
* Frustration – doctrine excluded by express contractual clauses and not available for self-induced events
|
20 October 2000 |
|
Guarantor’s unconditional personal liability on a loan was enforceable despite lack of corporate seal and asserted alterations or frustration.
Choice of law (English law) — corporate seal not required under Corporate Bodies’ Contracts Act; validity of power of attorney and Attorney‑General’s opinion; guarantor liability — scope and interpretation of Clause 18 (personal, unconditional guarantee); contract alterations/extensions — when they discharge a surety; sufficiency of demand by tested telex; doctrine of frustration excluded by contract and cannot be relied on if self‑induced.
|
20 October 2000 |
|
Appellants’ land challenge partly dismissed: four respondents proved applicant status; one respondent must obtain letters of administration.
* Land law – title dispute – application and lease offer – whether oral evidence and a lease offer listing an applicant and "others" can establish applicant status despite omissions on printed application forms. * Succession/estate – necessity of Letters of Administration/Probate where a claimant asserts rights derived from a deceased person. * Appellate review – scope for re-evaluating evidence on appeal where record supports the finding.
|
17 October 2000 |
|
Stay of execution refused where a monetary judgment can be adequately remedied by payment and irreparable loss was not shown.
Court of Appeal – stay of execution pending appeal (Rules 5(2)(b), 42(1)) – test for stay: irreparable/substantial loss – monetary judgment normally reparable by payment – inability to show payment would cripple applicant defeats stay application.
|
4 October 2000 |
| September 2000 |
|
|
Court found identification parade defective but upheld convictions based on corroborated confessions and recovered firearm.
* Criminal law – Identification parades – procedural rules (Ssentale) – improper conduct of parade does not necessarily vitiate other admissible evidence. * Criminal law – Extra-judicial confessions – retracted confessions require corroboration (Tuwamoi) and admissions leading to discovery admissible (s.29A Evidence Act). * Confession admissibility – language of recording – lack of suspect’s language use does not automatically render confession inadmissible. * Evidence – minor inconsistencies in witness accounts not fatal if they do not go to root of case. * Alibi and identity – corroborating confessions and recovery of exhibits can destroy alibi.
|
8 September 2000 |
|
A delayed confession may be admissible; failure to record in mother tongue not fatal; recent possession supports robbery conviction.
* Criminal law – robbery – elements and proof – recent possession of stolen vehicle as strong corroborative evidence.
* Evidence – confessions – voluntariness – effect of prior alleged torture and intervening time; section 26 Evidence Act.
* Evidence – language – failure to record statement in maker’s mother tongue not fatal if read back by translator and signed.
* Evidence – hearsay – inadmissible hearsay on record was not relied upon by trial court.
* Sentencing – appellate interference only where sentence is manifestly excessive, illegal or unreasonable.
|
8 September 2000 |
|
Court granted a consented extension of time to file a notice of appeal and ordered costs to abide the appeal outcome.
Civil procedure – extension of time to file notice of appeal – application granted by consent; notice of appeal to be filed within 14 days; costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.
|
4 September 2000 |
| August 2000 |
|
|
Whether appellants' alibi and claimed inconsistencies undermine eyewitness identification and proof of common intention in murder.
* Criminal law – Murder – Eyewitness identification in daylight – Reliability and preference for viva voce testimony over improperly tendered police statements.
* Criminal procedure – Admission of police statements – statements not shown/read back cannot be used to impeach witness testimony.
* Criminal law – Defence of alibi – burden on prosecution to rebut beyond reasonable doubt; appellate review under Rule 29.
* Criminal law – Common intention (s.22 Penal Code) – mob action and shared intent to kill.
* Evidence – Non-production of physical exhibits/medical evidence not fatal where cogent eyewitness evidence exists.
|
27 August 2000 |
|
Nighttime identification upheld; belated alibi consideration not prejudicial; appellate court imposes and corrects omitted sentence, appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – night time identification assessed by familiarity, lighting, distance and duration; caution where ID is sole basis. Criminal procedure – Alibi – trial judge’s belated consideration irregular but not necessarily prejudicial. Appellate powers – Court of Appeal may impose sentence omitted by trial court (Judicature Statute s.12; CrPC s.331). Sentencing – correction of trial court’s omission and setting aside of erroneous orders.
|
23 August 2000 |
|
Conviction quashed for improper confession admission, inadequate corroboration of accomplice evidence, and denial of counsel of choice.
Criminal law – admissibility of extra‑judicial statements – requirement for trial‑within‑a‑trial; accomplice evidence – need for corroboration; common intention – necessity to consider where multiple participants; circumstantial evidence – must exclude other reasonable hypotheses; right to counsel of choice – constitutional protection and effect of denial.
|
14 August 2000 |
|
|
8 August 2000 |
| July 2000 |
|
|
Criminal law
|
21 July 2000 |
| June 2000 |
|
|
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed due to lack of substantial grounds and procedural appropriateness of amendment.
Civil Procedure – Amendment of pleadings – Substitution of parties – Rule 39 of Court of Appeal rules – Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Rules.
|
19 June 2000 |
|
Medical corroboration and credible victim testimony upheld the respondent’s defilement conviction against the appellant.
Criminal law – Defilement – Proof of age and penetration – Victim testimony corroborated by medical evidence; corroboration as practice not strict rule; minor inconsistencies not fatal to conviction; rejection of unsubstantiated grudge defence; appellate review of sentence for manifest excessiveness.
|
5 June 2000 |
|
Whether identity and under‑18 age were proved in defilement and whether a 12‑year sentence was excessive.
* Criminal law – Defilement – Proof of age of the girl – complainant's unchallenged evidence and medical examination corroboration. * Criminal law – Identification – recognition by acquaintances, favourable light, contemporaneous witness observations. * Sentencing – deterrent sentence for defilement, appellate restraint where trial judge considered mitigating factors.
|
5 June 2000 |
|
Voir dire recording omission not fatal; child identification and corroboration sufficient, conviction and 16-year sentence upheld.
* Criminal law – Defilement – Evidence of child of tender years – Voir dire under s.38(3) Trial on Indictment Decree – requirement to assess age, understanding of oath, and duty to tell truth; recording practice. * Identification – reliability of child identification corroborated by arresting officer at scene. * Corroboration – medical evidence of partial penetration sufficient; slightest penetration constituting defilement. * Alibi – rejected where contradicted by eyewitness and arrest evidence. * Sentence – 16 years’ imprisonment lawful and not manifestly excessive.
|
5 June 2000 |
| May 2000 |
|
|
Wrongful termination without cause entitles an employee to contractual gratuity as part of damages for breach of contract.
Employment law – wrongful termination – damages for breach of fixed‑term employment contract – recovery of contractual gratuity as part of pecuniary loss; Contract construction – Clause permitting termination without reason does not bar recovery of benefits promised for completion of the term; Measure of damages – employee entitled to benefits lost through premature termination (salary and gratuity).
|
30 May 2000 |
|
Plaintiff's illegal use of a garage plate did not bar negligence claim; owner held vicariously liable for servant's driving.
* Tort — negligence — vehicle collision — requirement of possession/ control rather than registered title to maintain claim; vicarious liability of owner for servant's negligent driving.
* Private law — vicarious liability — servant/agent driving in course of employment.
* Public policy/ex turpi causa non oritur actio — illegality of plaintiff's conduct (use of dealer plate) does not bar negligence claim unless illegality is essential to the cause of action.
* Procedure — interlocutory judgment under Order 9 r.6 and subsequent final judgment jointly and severally.
* Costs — costs follow the event; defendants who successfully defended entitled to costs.
|
24 May 2000 |
|
Illegality of a damaged vehicle’s road status does not bar a negligence claim if illegality is not integral to the cause of action; vicarious liability upheld.
Tort — Negligence — Duty of care — Illegality of plaintiff’s vehicle use (dealer/garage plates) does not bar negligence claim where illegality is not integral to the cause of action; Vicarious liability — employer liable for servant’s negligence in course of employment; Civil procedure — interlocutory judgment under Order 9 r.6 and later final joint and several judgment after assessment of damages.
|
24 May 2000 |
|
Court upholds cancellation of title procured by fraud and affirms counterclaim enforceable against agents of a non-existent plaintiff.
Land law – registration and cancellation of title – Section 76 Registration of Titles Act – cancellation where title procured by fraud; Civil procedure – effect of plaintiff's non-existence – entertaining counterclaim after dismissal of main action; Agency – personal liability of agents acting for fictitious or non-existent principal; Evidence – proof of identity and fraud; Costs – personal costs order against advocates who sued without authority.
|
23 May 2000 |
|
Court affirms cancellation of title procured by fraud and upholds counterclaim despite plaintiff's non-existence.
Land law – Registration of Titles Act s.76 – Certificate of title procured by fraud – fraud vitiates title; Civil procedure – counterclaim survives dismissal of main action; Company law – non-existent or wound-up company cannot sue; personal liability of agents who bring actions for fictitious principals.
|
23 May 2000 |
|
Appeal dismissed: counterclaim enforceable, fraudulent title cancels registration, non-existent company cannot sue, advocates personally liable for costs.
Land law – registration and certificates of title – Transfer procured by fraud – Section 76 Registration of Titles Act – effect of fraud in title; Civil procedure – counterclaim may be adjudicated and enforced though main claim dismissed; Corporate capacity – absence of company/foreign winding-up prevents institution of suit; Costs – personal liability of advocates for instituting suit without authority.
|
23 May 2000 |
|
Medical and corroborative evidence upheld a child complainant’s identification and proof of defilement; appeal dismissed.
Defilement – proof of penetration – corroboration of complainant’s unsworn statement by medical evidence and victim’s distressed condition; Identification – single witness identification where accused allegedly has identical twin – daylight, familiarity and corroborative conduct support reliability; Procedural irregularity – cross‑examination of unsworn statement not fatal where no miscarriage of justice.
|
22 May 2000 |
|
Appellate court upheld rape conviction and 12-year sentence, finding medical and circumstantial evidence corroborated the complainant.
Criminal law – Rape – sufficiency of evidence and corroboration – medical and circumstantial corroboration of complainant’s account – warning on uncorroborated evidence – assessors unsworn irregularity – sentencing discretion – appellate correction of omitted formal sentence.
|
22 May 2000 |
|
Appellate court upheld defilement conviction: medical and circumstantial evidence established penetration despite an intact hymen.
* Criminal law – Defilement – proof of penetration – slightest penetration suffices; hymen intact not determinative. * Evidence – medical and circumstantial evidence (sperm, inflammation, timing, last seen together) can establish commission and identity. * Defence – allegations of frame-up must be put to prosecution witnesses; failure makes them suspect. * Sentencing – appellate interference limited; sentence not manifestly excessive.
|
19 May 2000 |
|
The appellant's challenge to a 12.5-year defilement sentence was dismissed; appellate interference requires wrong principle, overlooked factors, or manifest excess.
Criminal law - Sentencing discretion - Appellate interference only where wrong principle, overlooked material factors, or manifest excess - Remand period to be considered - Previous sentences not binding precedents but for comparison - Defilement offence with maximum penalty of death.
|
19 May 2000 |
|
Criminal law
|
19 May 2000 |
| April 2000 |
|
|
The appellant cannot hold the government liable for a public company’s debts without sale proceeds on the Divestiture Account.
Company law — limited liability of incorporated public enterprise; Government liability — not vicarious for company debts absent statutory basis; Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture Act s.23 — discretionary use of sale proceeds to pay creditors and requires averment that sale occurred and proceeds are on Divestiture Account; Pleading — plaint must disclose cause of action or be struck out; Procedure — preliminary points of law may be disposed of early when dispositive.
|
26 April 2000 |
|
A stay under rule 5(2)(b) is incompetent absent a valid notice of appeal or a pending appeal by the applicant.
* Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Rule 5(2)(b) – requirement of a valid notice of appeal or pending appeal as precondition for stay. * Appeal procedure – Effect of Reference to Full Court – setting aside extension orders renders appeals founded on them nullities. * Procedural default – failure to take essential steps to prosecute appeal leads to striking out and extinguishes appeal rights for purposes of interlocutory relief.
|
26 April 2000 |
|
Exchange‑rate loss denied where contract was in Uganda Shillings; interest increased to 25% for commercial delay.
Contract law – sales of goods and currency of contract; remoteness of damages – exchange‑rate losses not recoverable where contract priced and payable in local currency; Civil Procedure – interest on decretal sums – appellate adjustment of interest where commercial transaction warrants higher rate.
|
25 April 2000 |
|
|
20 April 2000 |
| March 2000 |
|
|
Failure to publish an Industrial Court award before interpretation is a procedural irregularity, not automatically voiding the interpretative decision; award applied from the dispute's originating date to affected employees.
Trade Disputes Act – publication of Industrial Court awards – directory vs mandatory procedural requirements – 28‑day limitation for interpretation – retrospective awards and effective date – beneficiaries (employees who left, retired or dismissed).
|
31 March 2000 |
|
An application for leave to appeal out of time is misconceived where no Notice of Appeal has been filed.
Civil procedure – Appeals – Leave to appeal out of time – Requirement to lodge Notice of Appeal under rule 75 – Application for leave out of time misconceived where no Notice of Appeal filed – Proper remedy is extension of time to file Notice of Appeal.
|
31 March 2000 |
|
Uganda Court of Appeal denies application for stay of execution pending appeal over insufficient likelihood of success.
Civil Procedure – Stay of execution – pending appeal – typographical error – likelihood of success – irreparable loss.
|
30 March 2000 |
|
Reference under rule 54(1)(b) is the sole remedy; section 70 bars late challenge to an unappealed preliminary decree.
Civil procedure – Reference under rule 54(1)(b) – jurisdiction of single Judge – appellate remedy to full Court; Civil procedure – Preliminary decree – section 70 Civil Procedure Act precludes challenging unappealed preliminary decree in appeal from final decree; Affidavits – Order 17 r.3(1) and Commissioner for Oaths rule 8 (raised but not determined).
|
29 March 2000 |
|
Appellant’s additional special damages unproven; counter-claim dismissed; pre-suit interest awarded from dismissal at prevailing bank rate.
Employment law – wrongful dismissal – assessment of special damages – evidentiary value of competing documentary salary scales; Civil Procedure Act s.26(2) – discretionary award of interest (pre-suit, from filing to decree, post-decree); Counter-claim – burden of proof and dismissal for failure to adduce evidence; Interest – in wrongful dismissal cases interest runs from date of dismissal; commercial/bank rate may be applied for pre-suit period.
|
27 March 2000 |
|
Thirty-day statutory appeal period runs from notice; unstamped/unsterved filings are invalid and time-barred.
* Tax law – limitation of appeals to Tax Appeals Tribunal – operative date of taxation decision – appointment of collection agent and subsequent communication may constitute notice of decision.
* Administrative procedure – validity of tribunal applications – compliance with procedural requirements (stamp, service) is mandatory.
* Statutory interpretation – section 17(1)(c) (30 days from notice) and section 17(7) (six months from decision) reconciled; section 23 discretion does not override mandatory time limits.
* Procedural law – time limits in statute are substantive and must be strictly complied with.
|
24 March 2000 |
