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
9 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
9 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
April 2003
Loan proceeds were disbursed to a third‑party account at the mortgagor’s instruction; claim to recover title dismissed.
Mortgage law – validity of mortgage transaction; disbursement to third‑party account by instruction of mortgagor; evidential weight of handwriting expert on disputed signatures; mortgagor’s default; foreclosure rights under Mortgage Decree s.9 and mortgage clause permitting realization without court order.
30 April 2003
Applicant in possession and prima facie challenge to mortgage justified a 90‑day interim injunction despite no proven irreparable harm.
Interim injunction – preservation of status quo – applicant living in mortgaged matrimonial home – respondent advertised sale after borrower defaulted. Prima facie case – challenge to mortgage validity where spouse’s consent allegedly absent. Irreparable harm – insufficiently pleaded. Balance of convenience favours occupant possession. Security for costs – Order 37 r.2 discretionary, not mandatory.
28 April 2003
The court convicted the respondent of defilement based on the complainant's credible uncorroborated testimony and judicial age assessment.
Criminal law – Defilement (C/S 123(1)) – Proof of age of complainant – judicial observation and common-sense assessment as admissible proof – Uncorroborated complainant’s testimony in sexual offences – warning to assessors – identification by conduct and immediate presentation – sentencing: deterrence balanced with mitigation and remand credit.
28 April 2003
Bank awarded US$23,159 against drawer and account-holder for dishonoured cheques; no duress established.
Bills of Exchange Act – dishonoured cheques – liability of drawer and account-holder; s.30(1) presumption of party for value; burden to prove absence of consideration; duress/countermand not proved; award of principal, interest and costs.
23 April 2003
Accused convicted of defilement after complainant, medical and witness evidence defeated his alibi; sentenced to eight years.
Criminal law – Defilement – Essential ingredients: complainant under 18; unlawful carnal knowledge; accused’s participation – Evidence – medical report corroborating sexual intercourse; corroboration by a window witness – Identification and alibi – Positive ID defeats alibi – Sentence: mitigation (first offender, remand credit) and aggravation (abuse of position).
14 April 2003
Whether the prosecution proved all elements of defilement and whether unsworn child testimony was sufficiently corroborated.
Criminal law – Defilement – Elements: age, unlawful sexual intercourse, accused’s responsibility – Child of tender years: unsworn evidence requires corroboration – Medical and circumstantial evidence as corroboration – Circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis of innocence – Identification in daylight – Sentencing: death is statutory maximum but mitigating factors and remand credit may lead to lesser term.
11 April 2003
Recent possession and identification established participation, but use of a deadly weapon by the accused was not proved.
Criminal law – Robbery – Elements: theft, violence or threat by a deadly weapon, and participation; proof beyond reasonable doubt required. Identification – victim familiarity and circumstances considered for positive identification. Recent possession – raises strong presumption of participation where no innocent explanation given. Use of deadly weapon – specific proof that accused used or threatened weapon required for s.273(2). Conviction on lesser cognate offence – s.86 T.I.D. permits conviction on a minor offence proved by the facts.
7 April 2003
Discredited identification and scanty ammunition evidence meant no prima facie case for murder or robbery.
Criminal law – No case to answer – Prima facie evidence required – Identification evidence discredited by inconsistent prior statements – Recovery of ammunition insufficient to prove robbery or murder – S.71(1) T.I.D. acquittal.
3 April 2003
Prosecution failed to prove identity and participation; contradictions in eyewitness evidence led to acquittal for lack of a prima facie case.
Criminal law – Murder – ingredients of offence (death, unlawful cause, malice aforethought, participation) – Prima facie case test – identification and witness credibility – contradiction fatal to prosecution case – acquittal under s.71(1) T.I.D.
1 April 2003