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.
9 judgments
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
9 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
November 2010
Whether the trial judge properly assessed medical and identification evidence in upholding a rape conviction.
Criminal law – Rape – evaluation of medical evidence; judge may reject inconclusive medical report if of no probative value. Identification – visual and voice recognition, prolonged proximity and contemporaneous complaint support reliability. Evidence – complaint to third party admissible to prove identity of assailant. Appeals – appellate court re-evaluates evidence but gives weight to trial judge’s credibility findings when properly founded.
23 November 2010

 

22 November 2010
Appellant's age and illness do not mitigate aggravated defilement; life sentences substituted for lenient 12‑year terms.
Criminal law – Defilement – Aggravated defilement where victims under 14 – severe penalty available. Sentencing – Aggravating features (extreme cruelty, restraint) outweigh age and ill‑health mitigation. Appeal – appellate court may increase sentence where original term is unduly lenient.
16 November 2010
Self-defence rejected; common intention and identification proven; death sentence upheld for brutal, deliberate murder.
Criminal law – Murder – self-defence – availability where accused's account contradicted by evidence; identification and corroboration; common intention; sentencing – appropriateness of death penalty for particularly brutal killings.
14 November 2010
Appeal against defilement conviction dismissed: child’s immediate complaint and medical evidence sufficiently proved guilt; sentence upheld.
Criminal law – Defilement – sufficiency of evidence – circumstantial and corroborative proof by immediate complaint and medical findings (ruptured hymen, mobile sperm). Evidence – admissibility and corroborative value of a child’s complaint to a third person. Criminal procedure – appellate review of sentence – appellate restraint where trial court exercised sentencing discretion judicially.
14 November 2010
Appeal against an 18‑year sentence for defiling a three‑year‑old dismissed despite claimed mental illness.
Criminal law – Sentence appeal – Defilement of a child – Victim age as aggravating factor – Alleged mental illness as potential mitigation – Appellate discretion to uphold sentence to deter offences against children.
10 November 2010
Appellate court upholds 15‑year sentence for sexual offence against a seven‑year‑old, finding mitigation properly weighed.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Appeal against sentence – Whether appellate court should interfere with a 15‑year term where offence against a seven‑year‑old is punishable by death; consideration of mitigation (guilty plea and remorse).
8 November 2010
Appellate court upheld 16-year defilement sentence; appellant’s youth insufficient mitigation to disturb sentence.
Criminal law – Defilement – severity of offence and sentencing; appellate interference with sentence – role of mitigation (age, guilty plea, first-offender status, time on remand) – trial judge’s discretion upheld.
7 November 2010
Interim injunction denied where the applicant disobeyed an existing court order and thus lacked 'clean hands'.
Constitutional jurisdiction (Article 137(3)) – interim injunctions – interlocutory relief pending constitutional petition – equitable relief and the clean hands doctrine – effect of disobedience to court orders on entitlement to injunctions.
5 November 2010