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
22 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
22 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
April 2005
Court finds no valid land sale agreement; plaintiff declared a trespasser, must pay damages for wrongful occupation.
Property law – Sale of land – Validity of agreement – Misrepresentation and trespass – Damages for unlawful occupation.
29 April 2005
Civil Procedure
27 April 2005
Court rejected preliminary objections to affidavits and ordered the substantive hearing to proceed, subject to payment of outstanding fees.
* Civil procedure – preliminary objections – striking out affidavits for alleged falsehoods – not appropriate without substantive hearing * Affidavits – capacity of deponent – no general bar where no special procedure or representative capacity is required * Civil procedure – supplementary affidavits filed without leave – not automatically struck out * Court fees – partial payment – registry may require balance, does not automatically invalidate proceedings * Locus/causa – absence of applicant’s name on annexed document – merits to be determined at hearing
27 April 2005
An affidavit omitting the jurat place breaches s6 Oaths Act and renders the application incompetent.
Oaths Act (Cap 19) s6 – jurat must state place and date; Commissioner for Oaths' stamp is not a substitute for place; Interpretation Act s43 and procedural form exceptions do not cure substantive jurat omissions; affidavit defect renders application incompetent.
27 April 2005
Plaintiff voluntarily handed over vehicle as loan security and failed to prove wrongful seizure or causation for alleged damage.
* Contract/security – sale agreement and delivery of log book as security for loan – entitlement to retain/seize vehicle while debt outstanding. * Property seizure – voluntariness of delivery versus forceful seizure; absence of evidence of forcible taking. * Evidence – burden to prove condition prior to loss and causation; reliance on Evidence Act ss.101–103. * Damages – requirement to prove causation and pre-loss condition before award of repair or market value.
27 April 2005
Whether Local Governments Act required Election Petition Rules for appeals; court held Civil Procedure Act governs and appeal was timely.
Local Governments Act 1997 s.172 – absence of appeal procedure; Election (Petition) Rules – applicability to appeals; Civil Procedure Act s.79 – governing appeals and time computation; competency and timeliness of election-petition appeals.
27 April 2005
Extension of time to appeal granted; delay blamed on prior counsel, not the applicant.
Extension of time – "sufficient cause" test – Applicant’s vigilance – Delay attributable to previous counsel’s procedural failings (uncommissioned affidavit) – Shanti v Handocha applied.
27 April 2005
The applicant failed to prove intercourse or the respondent’s participation; respondent acquitted.
* Criminal law – Defilement – elements: age, sexual intercourse, participation; * Evidence – child of tender years requires corroboration before conviction; * Medical evidence – intact hymen and timing of injuries relevant to corroboration; * Burden of proof – prosecution must prove all ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.
25 April 2005
Criminal law
25 April 2005
Criminal law
25 April 2005
Whether a respondent may rely on registered title after occupying property in breach of an interim injunction.
Civil procedure – Temporary injunction to preserve status quo – Prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience – Occupation in breach of interim injunction – Registration and bona fide purchaser defence limited where occupation follows violation of court order – Equitable doctrine: clean hands.
22 April 2005
Fatal shot from accused’s firearm unlawful but without proven intent; convicted of manslaughter and released time‑served.
Criminal law – Murder versus manslaughter – Elements of murder (death, unlawfulness, malice aforethought, participation) – Onus to rebut presumption of unlawfulness – Accidental/ negligent discharge of firearm – Evidence required to prove malice aforethought – Sentence: time served for first offender.
22 April 2005
Prosecution proved death and malice but failed to prove the accuseds’ participation due to unreliable identification and weak linkage to the weapon.
* Criminal law – Murder – elements required: death, unlawful killing, malice aforethought, participation proven beyond reasonable doubt. * Identification evidence – caution where poor lighting and long distances; need for corroborative evidence. * Forensic/chain of custody – recovery of weapon requires satisfactory linkage to accused and scene. * Alibi – prosecution obliged to disprove alibi by placing accused at scene.
21 April 2005
Criminal law
12 April 2005
Victim’s age proved but penetration not corroborated; acquittal for defilement and conviction for indecent assault, sentence five years.
* Criminal law – defilement – ingredients: victim’s age, sexual intercourse (penetration), and accused’s participation – requirement of corroboration of a child’s evidence in material particulars when alleging penetration. * Criminal law – where prosecution fails to prove penetration, conviction may follow for a lesser sexual offence such as indecent assault. * Evidence – alibi – prosecution must disprove alibi by placing accused at scene.
12 April 2005
Lack of corroborative evidence of penetration led to acquittal for defilement but conviction for indecent assault.
Criminal law – Defilement (s.129 Penal Code) – elements: age, penetration, and identity – requirement for corroboration of child’s evidence on material particulars – absence of medical/birth-certificate evidence – alibi: prosecution’s duty to disprove – conviction on lesser charge of indecent assault (s.128(1)).
12 April 2005
Acquittal where prosecution proved death and malice but failed to prove accused’s participation due to unreliable identification and unrefuted alibi.
Criminal law – Murder – Ingredients (death, unlawful act, malice aforethought, participation) – Identification evidence – single-witness cautions – alibi – burden on prosecution to disprove alibi – inference of malice from surrounding circumstances.
11 April 2005
Malice and death proved, but insufficient circumstantial evidence of accused’s participation — accused acquitted.
Criminal law – Murder – Elements: death, unlawful act, malice aforethought, participation – Circumstantial evidence – Requirement that inculpatory facts be incompatible with innocence – Insufficient circumstantial proof requires acquittal.
11 April 2005
Whether circumstantial evidence proved the accused’s participation in a medically established murder.
Criminal law – Murder: elements to be proved (death, unlawful act, malice aforethought, participation); Circumstantial evidence – must be inconsistent with innocence before inferring guilt; Evidence – weight of unsupported or inconsistent testimony; Flight – not necessarily probative of guilt where innocent explanations exist.
11 April 2005

 

6 April 2005
Identification and evidence established attempted murder; alibi rejected and life sentence upheld.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – need for caution but conviction may stand where witnesses who knew accused identify under satisfactory conditions; * Criminal law – Attempted murder – requirement of overt act and intention to cause death satisfied where corrosive liquid thrown causing injurious effects; * Evidence – defects in handling/chain of custody and medical witness discrepancies may be unsatisfactory but not necessarily fatal to prosecution case; * Defence – alibi may be rejected as fabricated where prosecution places accused at scene; * Sentencing – life imprisonment for attempted murder discretionary and may be upheld for particularly grave acts.
4 April 2005
Identification and intent for attempted murder established; alibi rejected and life sentence upheld.
* Criminal law – Identification evidence – reliability where witnesses knew accused previously, adequate light and proximity; special caution but conviction possible if quality good. * Criminal law – Attempted murder – requirement of overt act plus intention to cause death; corrosive substance thrown constituted sufficient evidence of intent. * Evidence – Exhibits/chain of custody – improper packing and marking criticized but not fatal where substance identity and effects established. * Defence – Alibi – accused does not bear burden to prove; prosecution may disprove by placing accused at scene. * Sentencing – Life imprisonment for attempted murder is discretionary; appellate court will not interfere absent exceptional circumstances.
4 April 2005