Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

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
7 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
7 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
September 1995
Uganda v Owino Moses (Criminal Case No.143 of 1995) [1995] UGHC 24 (27 September 1995)
Criminal law|Burden of Proof
 27 September 1995
Uganda v Kasozi Stephen (Criminal CAse No. 229 of 1994) [1995] UGHC 26 (20 September 1995)
Proved aggravated robbery but unreliable night-time identification led to acquittal of the accused.
* Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – elements: theft, violence and use or threat of a deadly weapon. * Evidence – Identification – caution required for single-witness/night-time identification; alibi not destroyed. * Burden of proof – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
 20 September 1995
Uganda v Tandema Phillipo (Criminal Session Case No. 18 of 1995) [1995] UGHC 22 (20 September 1995)
Accused acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter where malice aforethought was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Murder – Elements: unlawful killing, identity of killer, and malice aforethought – burden on prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. * Circumstantial evidence – must exclude reasonable alternative explanations and co‑existing factors – Simon Musoke principle. * Confession/evidence conflict – where medical and accused’s accounts disagree it may be unsafe to convict for murder. * Intoxication and provocation – may negate malice aforethought and reduce liability to manslaughter. * Manslaughter – appropriate verdict where intent to kill not proved.
 20 September 1995
Sebufu v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 11 of 1995) [1995] UGHC 41 (15 September 1995)

 

 15 September 1995
Uganda v Hussein Basiita (Criminal session case 260/94) [1995] UGHC 79 (7 September 1995)
Conviction for defilement based on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence, rejecting absence of medical proof and defense claims.
Criminal Law - Defilement - Proof of guilt based on circumstantial evidence - Lack of direct testimony - Irresistible impulse as a defense.
 7 September 1995
Uganda v Kulaba Badiru (Criminal Case No.259 of 1994) [1995] UGHC 25 (1 September 1995)
Where the complainant's absence leaves only suspicion, a submission of no case to answer must be upheld and the accused acquitted.
* Criminal law – Defilement – Whether prosecution made out a prima facie case to put accused to answer – Submission of no case to answer. * Evidence – Absence of complainant’s testimony – failure to connect accused to offence. * Principle – Suspicion alone insufficient to convict (Israil Epuka s/o Achietu v R). * Procedure – Application of R.T. Bhatt v R test for no-case submissions. * Order – Acquittal under section 71(1) TID where no case to answer is established.
 1 September 1995
Uganda V Mboila Daudi (Criminal Session Case No. 303/94) [1995] UGHC 9 (1 September 1995)
Accused convicted of defilement based on medical evidence, an admission, and corroborative circumstantial proof despite child’s inability to testify.
* Criminal law – Defilement (s.123(1) Penal Code) – elements: unlawful sexual intercourse and victim under 18 years. * Evidence – Medical opinion and witness observations as proof of sexual intercourse where complainant is too young to testify. * Evidence – Circumstantial evidence and its requirement to point only to the accused (Simon Musoke). * Evidence – Admissibility and weight of an extra‑judicial admission (distinguished as admission, not full confession) and corroboration by accused’s conduct (attempt to flee). * Procedure – Child’s incompetence to testify does not bar conviction if other reliable evidence proves the offence.
 1 September 1995