High Court of Uganda

The High Court of Uganda is the third court of record in order of hierarchy and has unlimited original jurisdiction, which means that it can try any case of any value or crime of any magnitude. Appeals from all Magistrates Courts go to the High Court.

The High Court is headed by the Honorable Principal Judge who is responsible for the administration of the court and has supervisory powers over Magistrate's courts.

Physical address

Plot 2, the Square Kampala

Visit website

http://www.judiciary.go.ug/data/smenu/9/High

11 judgments

Advanced search

Court registries

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

11 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
August 1994
Islamic University of (U) v M.D.G. Hossain Khan (Civil Suit No. 104 of 1994) [1994] UGHC 34 (30 August 1994) Certiorari denied where statutory nationality preference and no proven illegality, bias, or hearing defect in appointment process. Judicial review – certiorari – administrative appointments by statutory university bodies; advertised qualifications as guidance not mandatory; statutory priority for citizens in appointments; requirement of proof for allegations of bias or discrimination; administrative (not quasi-judicial) nature of interviews.	30 August 1994
Asiimwe & 4 Others v Kezia & Another (Civil Appeal 5 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 111 (23 August 1994)	23 August 1994
Kanoni Importers & Exporters & 25 Others v Chatrabhut & Another (Civil Suit 459 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 70 (22 August 1994)	22 August 1994
Kanoni Importers & Exporters & Anor v Chatrabhut Laxmidas Dalia & Anor (Civil Suit No.459 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 36 (22 August 1994) Court refused interim relief where many named plaintiffs denied authorising the suit; hearing adjourned sine die. Civil procedure – temporary injunction – interlocutory relief contingent on existence of a properly instituted suit; plaintiffs’ authority to sue disputed – suit allegedly instituted without authority; court declined to grant interim order and adjourned hearing sine die.	22 August 1994
Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd v M/s Energo Project Corporation (Civil Suit No.207 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 23 (16 August 1994) Plaintiff proved a sale contract, recovered the price, damages, interest at court rates and costs after defendant failed to rebut delivery evidence. Contract of sale – tender and acceptance – delivery notes as evidence of receipt. Burden of proof – shifting obligation where defendant alleges forgery/absence of signatory. Sale of Goods Act – claim for price under Section 49. Damages for breach – foreseeability (Hadley v Baxendale). Interest – appropriate court rates versus contractual/excessive rates.	16 August 1994
Uganda v Ndyaba and 5 Others (Criminal Session Case 270 of 1992) [1994] UGHC 102 (15 August 1994) Accused acquitted where contradictory, unreliable identification and witness evidence failed to establish a prima facie case. Criminal law – No-case submission – sufficiency of evidence – identification evidence – contradictions and inconsistencies – effect of passage of time – standard for prima facie case (Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R).	15 August 1994
Uganda v RA 2801 cpl Busingye (Criminal Session Case 136 of 1992) [1994] UGHC 105 (15 August 1994) Accused acquitted where identification was doubtful despite proof that murder and aggravated robbery occurred. Criminal law – Murder and aggravated robbery – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Identification evidence at night – need for corroboration and reliability – malice inferred from use of firearm – post‑mortem not essential to prove death.	15 August 1994
Uganda v Singa (Criminal Session Case 141 of 1992) [1994] UGHC 78 (15 August 1994) Court found complainant unreliable, confession questionable and corroboration inadequate, so prosecution failed to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal law – Rape – Credibility of complainant’s evidence – contradictions and intoxication affecting reliability; corroboration required where necessary. Evidence – Charge and caution statement – voluntariness and admissibility; retraction/repudiation and its weight. Corroboration – absence of physical exhibits and weak lay corroboration undermining prosecution case. Consent – effect of complainant’s intoxication on issue of consent.	15 August 1994
Uganda v Singa (Criminal Session Case 141 of 1992) [1994] UGHC 79 (15 August 1994) Prosecution failed to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt due to an unreliable complainant, doubtful confession and inadequate corroboration. Criminal law – Rape – Credibility of complainant – Material contradictions undermining testimony – Corroboration cannot cure intrinsically untruthful evidence. Evidence – Confession/charge and caution statement – admissibility after trial‑within‑a‑trial and weight of confession where possibly retracted or inconsistent. Evidence – Corroboration – absence of key exhibits and unreliable witness accounts limits probative value.	15 August 1994
Uganda v Singa (Criminal Sessions Case 141 of 1992) [1994] UGHC 106 (15 August 1994) Acquittal where complainant's testimony and a retracted police confession were found unreliable, leaving the prosecution without proof. Criminal law – Rape – ingredients: unlawful carnal knowledge, lack of consent, identity of accused – necessity of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence – Credibility of complainant – contradictions, intoxication and effect on reliability. Evidence – Corroboration – limits where primary witness is not intrinsically credible. Evidence – Confessions – charge-and-caution statements, retracted/repudiated confessions and requirement for independent satisfaction of truth (s.24 Evidence Act; authorities cited).	15 August 1994
Ugandq v Mubangizi and 3 Others (Criminal Session Case 70 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 98 (15 August 1994) Prosecution proved theft and use of a gun but failed to prove accuseds’ participation beyond reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal. Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Elements: theft, use of a deadly weapon, participation of accused. Identification evidence – Night-time identification, intoxication, contradictory accounts, need for caution. Confession evidence – Repudiated confession, prosecution must prove authenticity and surrounding circumstances; insufficient proof negates evidential value. Co-accused statements – Require independent corroboration before being acted upon to convict another accused. Exhibits/recoveries – Non‑production or unexplained chain of custody weakens prosecution case. Burden of proof – Remains on prosecution throughout; doubts resolved for accused.	15 August 1994