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
November 2002
Uganda v Simbwa Noah (HCT-00-CR-SC-0029 of 2002) [2002] UGHC 15 (15 November 2002) Criminal law	15 November 2002
Uganda Vs. Kamu Masawi Another (Crim. Case No.20 Of 2002) (Crim. Case No.20 of 2002) [2002] UGHC 112 (15 November 2002) Whether theft and identity were proved for robbery on single-witness identification; acquitted of robbery, convicted of burglary. * Criminal law – Robbery with aggravation – elements: theft, use/threat of deadly weapon, participation. * Single identifying witness – cautionary rules; identification on balance when conditions favourable (familiarity, lighting, close contact). * Contradictory evidence on theft invalidates robbery conviction; conviction for burglary where entry and assault proved.	15 November 2002
Uganda Vs. Wambuzi Michael (Crim. Case No. 81 Of 2000) (Crim. Case No. 81 of 2000) [2002] UGHC 116 (15 November 2002) Acquittal where victim's age and intercourse were unproven and confession was uncorroborated despite being admitted. Criminal law — Defilement — Admissibility of confession: strict compliance with recording directions not always required; admission permissible where contents properly interpreted and no prejudice. Proof of age of complainant — birth certificate and complainant's testimony necessary to establish age beyond reasonable doubt. Confession with material discrepancies unsafe to ground conviction without independent corroboration; mere presence with complainant insufficient corroboration.	15 November 2002
Vicent Kafureka v Yowana Katorobo (Civil Appeal No.12 Of 1995) (Civil Appeal No.12 of 1995) [2002] UGHC 79 (15 November 2002) Failure by the appellant to extract the order before appealing rendered the appeal incompetent and was struck out with costs. Civil procedure – Appeal – Requirement to extract and attach formal decree/order before filing appeal – Jurisdictional defect – Order 18 r.7 CPR – Constitutional discretion (Art.126(2)(e)) insufficient to cure non-extraction – Appeal incompetent and struck out with costs.	15 November 2002
David Massa v National Housing Corporation (Civil Suit No.274 Of 2001) (Civil Suit No.274 of 2001) [2002] UGHC 62 (14 November 2002) Summary dismissal was wrongful where a suspect should have been suspended under the agreement, entitling the applicant to damages. Labour law – wrongful summary dismissal – application of written (union) agreement – suspension of a suspect vs summary dismissal; entitlement to terminal (special) benefits; award of general damages for repudiation; interest and costs; refusal to stay civil suit pending criminal proceedings.	14 November 2002
Habre International Trading Co (u) Ltd v Kampala City Council (HCT-00-CV-CS-0763 OF 1994) (HCT-00-CV-CS-0763 of 1994) [2002] UGHC 27 (12 November 2002) Plaintiff’s suit dismissed because the plaint was filed by a firm lacking a practitioner with a valid practising certificate, rendering proceedings invalid. * Civil procedure – validity of proceedings – documents prepared or filed by an advocate without a valid practising certificate are invalid and of no legal effect (Professor Syed Huq principle). * Evidence – proof of practising certificate – use of certified lists and firm registration particulars to establish lack of a practising practitioner. * Procedure – late-raising of dispositive points of law – court may adjudicate such points; party must apply to rebut or reopen evidence. * Remedy – invalid plaint renders subsequent proceedings incurably defective; dismissal with costs.	12 November 2002
Uganda v Kasaija David (Criminal Session Case No. 58 of 2001) (Criminal Session Case No. 58 of 2001) [2002] UGHC 35 (12 November 2002) Prosecution proved defilement beyond reasonable doubt through child testimony and medical corroboration; accused convicted. * Criminal law – Defilement – elements: unlawful sexual intercourse with a female under eighteen years; proof of age, sexual intercourse and accused’s participation. * Evidence – child witnesses – voir dire to determine competence; unsworn evidence and affirmation. * Medical evidence – corroboration of sexual intercourse by hymenal tear and bruising. * Identity – corroboration by child eyewitness testimony. * Burden of proof – prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.	12 November 2002
Olowo v J. V. Strabag and Stirling (HCT-04-CV-CS-0038-2002) [2002] UGHC 135 (11 November 2002) Licence for access exceeded by defendants; breach proved and modest damages awarded due to limited proof of loss. Contract — licence for access — whether conduct exceeded licence (access v. access road) — breach established; Damages — requirement to prove quantum, competency of expert valuation and proof of loss; Limitation/Laches — not shown to bar claim.	11 November 2002
Uganda v Rwabulikwire Moses (HCT-01-CR-SC-0066 of 2001) (HCT-01-CR-SC-0066 of 2001) [2002] UGHC 14 (11 November 2002) Accused convicted of attempted defilement; penetration not proved but attempt and identity established. Criminal law – Defilement and attempted defilement – Proof of penetration as essential element – Medical evidence (intact hymen and absence of injuries) – Venereal disease not conclusive of sexual intercourse – Identification of accused by young complainant – Reliance on uncorroborated child testimony after judicial warning – Sentence for attempted defilement.	11 November 2002
The Hon Minister of Internal Affairs v Kagwa Andrew & 5 Others (HCT-00-CV-MA-0660 OF 2002) (HCT-00-CV-MA-0660 of 2002) [2002] UGHC 26 (1 November 2002) A notice of motion must comply with Order VI Rule 1(a) and Section 101 cannot substitute for Order 9 Rule 24. Civil procedure — Notice of motion as a pleading — Order VI Rule 1(a) requirement for summary of evidence, lists of witnesses, documents and authorities — Mandatory language but consequences of non-compliance left to court’s discretion — Need for explanation to permit non-rejection; Improper reliance on Section 101 where Order 9 Rule 24 applies — Dismissal with costs for procedural non-compliance and wrong provision invoked.	1 November 2002
Uganda v Muyanja Erifaz (Criminal Case No. MME. 134 of 2002) [2002] UGHC 13 (1 November 2002) Criminal law	1 November 2002