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
10 judgments

Court registries

  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
10 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
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
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
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
March 2005
Conviction quashed due to inadequate findings, missing material exhibits, and prejudice from denial of a defence witness.
Criminal law — burden of proof — requirement for trial judge to make specific findings on each ingredient; Child evidence — corroboration must be particularised; Evidence — failure to produce material exhibits and lack of forensic analysis may render conviction unsafe; Criminal procedure — duty to assist unrepresented accused and to issue process under s.128(3) Magistrate Courts Act to secure defence witnesses; Bias — refusal to secure a defence witness can create appearance of bias and prejudice right to a fair trial.
10 March 2005
February 2005
First accused convicted on reliable identification; second acquitted due to inconsistent identification and misnaming.
Aggravated robbery – elements (theft, violence, deadly weapon, participation) – identification evidence – reliability and cautious assessment of eyewitness testimony – alibi defence — misnomer undermining prosecution case – mandatory sentence on conviction.
11 February 2005
Theft and violence proved but identity and use/threat of a deadly weapon were not established; accused acquitted.
* Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Elements: theft, use or threat of violence, use or threat of deadly weapon. * Evidence – Identification in darkness – reliability and necessary caution. * Evidence – Circumstantial evidence and corroboration – must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. * Defence – Alibi and visitor status – evidential weight.
11 February 2005
Prosecution failed to prove essential elements and reliable identification, resulting in acquittal on all aggravated robbery counts.
* Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Elements: theft; use or threat of violence; use or threat of deadly weapon; accused's participation (sections 285, 286(2) Penal Code). * Evidence – Identification by eyewitness – need for caution where identification occurred at night, under terror, and the importance of corroboration. * Evidence – Failure to call essential witnesses (victims) undermines proof of theft. * Procedure – Identification parade / rule 59 of Police Standing Orders: failure to follow weakens identification evidence. * Burden of proof – prosecution must prove every ingredient beyond reasonable doubt; any doubt resolved for the accused.
11 February 2005
Prosecution proved aggravated robbery by identity, violence and grievous harm; accused convicted and sentenced to death.
Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Elements: theft, violence, deadly weapon, grievous harm – Identification evidence: familiarity, visibility, voice recognition and corroboration – Child witness corroboration – Alibi – Mandatory death sentence under Sections 285 and 286(2) Penal Code Act.
11 February 2005
The accused were convicted of aggravated robbery on identification, admissible confessions and corroboration, and sentenced to death.
Criminal law — Aggravated robbery — elements: theft, use/threat of violence, deadly weapons — identification evidence — admissibility and reliability of extra‑judicial confessions — accomplice evidence and corroboration — s.27 Evidence Act — statutory capital sentence.
11 February 2005
Accused convicted of murder based on a voluntary confession corroborated by circumstantial evidence despite absence of body.
Criminal law – murder without body – proof of death by circumstantial evidence; admissibility and corroboration of a retracted confession; circumstantial evidence standard; malice aforethought; sentence of death.
11 February 2005