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.
28 judgments
Skip past years
Skip past months
Skip to results

Results. 28 judgments found.

28 judgments
October 2021
Court affirmed respondent's tenancy and held appellants jointly and severally liable for unlawful distress and resultant damages.
  • Land/tenancy — determination of tenant — company separate legal personality; evidence of tenancy (rent receipts, correspondence, signage)
  • Tort/damages — unlawful distress/lock-up — liability of owner, manager and bailiff acting on instructions; joint and several liability. Appellate review — duty of first appellate court to reappraise evidence but respect trial judge's advantage on credibility unless justification to depart; assessment of damages not upset where quantum not appealed
28 October 2021
25 October 2021
Court set aside Registrar’s taxation, re-applied taxation rules and reduced the bill of costs to 9,403,400/=.
  • Taxation of costs — Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations (Sixth Schedule) 2018 — Rule 1(d) instruction fees; Rule 10(1) and 10(3) drawing court papers; Rule 11 copies; Rule 12 attendances; allowance of disbursements.
22 October 2021
21 October 2021
Costs of a withdrawn stay application were ordered to be in the cause pending the related appeal.
  • Costs — discretion under Civil Procedure Act s.27 — general rule costs follow the event — departure where good reason shown — withdrawn stay application overtaken by events — court delay relevant — costs to be in the cause pending related appeal (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2020).
21 October 2021
A second appeal court cannot admit additional evidence except narrowly to elucidate existing record; application dismissed.
  • Civil procedure — Court of Appeal (second appeal) — admissibility of additional evidence — Rule 30(1)(b) and Rule 32(2) — exception for elucidation only; Evidence — judicial notice of public documents (court orders, judgments) under the Evidence Act; Application dismissed for seeking additional evidence on second appeal.
20 October 2021
19 October 2021
19 October 2021
18 October 2021
Conviction quashed where trial judge doubted a sexual act yet convicted the appellant of indecent assault.
  • Criminal law — Child sexual offences — contradictions in prosecution evidence; medical evidence and broken chain of evidence (washed clothes, delayed examination); trial judge’s doubt as to sexual act inconsistent with conviction for lesser offence; appellate reappraisal — conviction and sentence quashed; release ordered.
18 October 2021
Treating head office and branch as separate taxable persons renders internal overseas services imported and VAT‑liable.
  • VAT — Regulation 13(3)(a) of VAT Regulations — treatment of overseas head office and domestic branch as distinct taxable persons; imported services — supervisory/administrative services performed abroad but consumed in Uganda — taxable under destination principle; section 11(2) employee‑to‑employer exclusion — inapplicable where branch treated as separate taxable person; tax refund — claimant must prove overpayment.
18 October 2021
15 October 2021
15 October 2021
15 October 2021
15 October 2021
15 October 2021
15 October 2021
Conviction quashed where single identifying witness and improperly rejected alibi made the conviction unsafe.
  • Criminal law — Second appeals — scope limited to questions of law; Identification evidence — reliance on single identifying witness requires caution (light, proximity, familiarity, duration) but need not be corroborated if conditions are good; Alibi — duty of prosecution to disprove alibi; late disclosure may be excused where state delayed statement-taking; Conviction unsafe where single identification conflicts with sworn alibi evidence amid motives (grudges).
15 October 2021
15 October 2021
A separate prior sentence does not affect sentencing in a different trial; multiple forged‑note particulars should have been charged as one count, and the appellate court re‑sentenced accordingly.
  • Criminal law — Sentencing — Second appeals: legality of sentence vs severity — Consecutive versus concurrent sentences (Magistrates Courts Act ss.175–176).; Criminal procedure — Contents and joinder of counts — When multiple items found in same transaction should form one count with particulars (MCA ss.85–86).; Penal Code s.357 — Possession of forged currency notes — appropriate single sentence for possession of several forged notes.
15 October 2021
Multiple counts for possession of forged notes arising from the same transaction improperly multiplied sentences; appeal re‑sentenced to a single concurrent term.
  • Criminal law — Sentencing — Effect of sentence in a different trial — Sentences in separate trials commence from their own date and do not alter each other. Criminal procedure — Charging and joinder — Multiple counts for possession of forged notes on same date/place are particulars of one offence, not separate offences
  • Sentencing — Consecutive vs concurrent sentences — consecutive sentences are the norm, but improperly charging identical transaction as multiple counts may unlawfully multiply punishment
  • Appeal — Second appeal limited to points of law; appellate court may validate late grounds where justified
15 October 2021
15 October 2021
Damage to imported vehicles occurred before customs custody; URA had no duty of care and is not liable.
  • Customs/administration — liability for goods in customs area — distinction between supervisory role of customs commissioner and custody control of licensed Internal Container Depots (ICDs); duty of care and negligence — no duty where goods were damaged prior to customs possession; evidential weight of contemporaneous ICD inspection reports and witness testimony.
14 October 2021
12 October 2021
12 October 2021
12 October 2021
5 October 2021
5 October 2021