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
12 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
12 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
March 1995
Three appellants' convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm upheld; fourth appellant acquitted for lack of identification.
Criminal law – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Identification and credibility of witnesses; medical evidence by clinical officer; common intention – liability of non‑striking co‑accused; sentencing discretion – custodial sentence upheld as not excessive; acquittal where witness fails to identify accused.
31 March 1995
Acquittal upheld because a prior RCII civil decision supported the respondent’s claim of right; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – claim of right under Penal Code s.8; effect of prior civil (RCI/RCII) determinations on criminal liability; appellate review of acquittal; procedural irregularities (delay, magistrate handovers, failure to cross-examine) and curability; administrative acts versus judicial determinations (Chief Magistrate).
27 March 1995
Court upholds dismissal for gross insubordination, rejects speculative long-term damages and discretionary gratuity, and dismisses suit with costs.
Employment law – dismissal for misconduct – gross insubordination – procedural fairness and right to be heard – notice and pay in lieu – discretionary gratuity – offsets for advances and loans – speculative future damages not recoverable.
17 March 1995

 

17 March 1995
Prosecution’s vague testimony failed to prove sexual intercourse; no prima facie case, accused acquitted and released.
Criminal law – Rape – Prima facie case – prosecution must prove essential ingredient of sexual intercourse; vague testimony insufficient. Criminal procedure – Acquittal at close of prosecution’s case where evidence cannot support conviction. Evidentiary standards – application of prima facie test from R.T. Bhatt v R.
16 March 1995
Court rejects constitutional challenge to defilement statute but acquits for reasonable doubt on identification and unrefuted alibi.
Criminal law – Defilement (section 123(1) Penal Code) – constitutionality challenge – qualified constitutional rights; Evidence – sexual offences – need for corroboration of single-witness identification; Medical evidence as corroboration of penetration and age; Alibi – prosecution’s duty to disprove; Proof beyond reasonable doubt required.
15 March 1995

 

14 March 1995

 

6 March 1995
A grant of Probate/Administration vests exclusive representative authority in the grantee; others are barred from suing on the estate.
Succession law – Representative standing – Effect of grant of Probate/Letters of Administration – Only grantee may act for deceased until recall/revocation (s.264 Succession Act). Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Competency of plaintiff to sue in respect of estate property. Registration of Titles – Estate land severance and the role of the Administrator General in actions affecting estate land.
6 March 1995
A succession certificate does not authorise litigation where Probate/Administration has been granted to the Administrator General.
Succession law – representative capacity to sue; Probate/Letters of Administration vs succession certificate; s.264 Succession Act bars others from suing as representative; effect of Registration of Titles Act entry; limitation defence raised but matter determined on representative capacity.
6 March 1995
Plaintiff proved unpaid supply of petroleum; defendant’s unproven set-off failed; judgment for principal with court-rate interest.
Civil debt – sale of goods (petroleum) – proof of indebtedness – admission in writing supports plaintiff’s claim. Set-off – burden of proof – defendant failed to prove alleged loss from defective equipment. Interest – claimant’s contractual or claimed high rate must be justified; court may award statutory/court rate instead. Costs – unspecified attendant/financial costs not allowed without proof.
6 March 1995
Plaintiff awarded damages after court finds driver’s negligence caused pedestrian injuries.
Tort—Road traffic accident; negligence—duty of care and breach by speeding/loss of control; causation—linking driver’s negligence to pedestrian injuries; quantum—assessment of general damages.
3 March 1995