Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

The Criminal Division is Responsible for hearing all serious criminal offences referred to it by the Magistrates' Courts. According to the Principal Judge's Circular, except for Commercial Court Judges who must attend to only Commercial Court cases, the rest of the Judges of the High Court who are based in Kampala are members of the Criminal Division irrespective of the other Divisions of the High Court that they belong to.

Each of the above judges is supposed to do, at least, one High Court Criminal Session in a year at Kampala

Physical address
High Court Building at Plot 2, the Square.
Visit website
https://judiciary.go.ug/data/smenu/13/Criminal%20Division.html
8 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
8 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
September 2008
Uganda v Bazirake (Criminal Session Case No. 0083 of 2004) [2008] UGHCCRD 1 (29 September 2008)
Child’s unsworn testimony must be corroborated; corroboration and favourable identification supported conviction for defilement.
* Criminal law – Defilement – ingredients: sexual intercourse, age under 18, perpetrator’s identity. * Child witness – unsworn testimony after voire dire requires corroboration as a matter of law. * Identification – need for caution but reliability assessed by familiarity, daylight, proximity and multiple witnesses. * Medical evidence – inflammation and discharge may corroborate intercourse even without hymenal rupture.
 29 September 2008
Uganda v Masika (Criminal Session Case No. 0046 of 2006) [2008] UGHCCRD 7 (26 September 2008)
Acquittal where circumstantial evidence failed to exclude reasonable hypothesis of innocence regarding accused's participation in spouse's stabbing.
* Criminal law – Murder: elements — death, unlawfulness, malice aforethought, accused’s participation. * Circumstantial evidence — requirement that inculpatory facts exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. * Malice inferred from use of lethal weapon near vital organ. * Acquittal where circumstantial case insufficient to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt.
 26 September 2008
Uganda v Kaberuka & Anor (Criminal Session Case No. 0002 of 2005) [2008] UGHCCRD 15 (24 September 2008)
Acquittal where theft and violence proven but identity and use of a deadly weapon were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Aggravated robbery: elements (theft; violence; deadly weapon; participation). Identification evidence – single identifying witness, necessity for reliable, consistent first statements and naming assailants at earliest opportunity. Deadly weapon – requirement of firing or recovery/examination to establish as a gun. Circumstantial evidence – recovery of stolen property insufficient to prove participation by accused. Benefit of reasonable doubt to accused.
 24 September 2008
Uganda v R A 15760 Pte Katuramu (Criminal Session Case No. 0047 of 2004) [2008] UGHCCRD 10 (12 September 2008)
Violence and theft proved but no functioning gun established; convicted of simple robbery and sentenced to eight years.
Criminal law — Robbery vs aggravated robbery — Elements required for aggravated robbery (theft, violence, use or threat of deadly weapon, participation) — Identification evidence — favourable conditions and corroboration by recovery of stolen property — Failure to prove deadly weapon where alleged firearm not fired or recovered — Conviction on minor cognate offence under Trial on Indictments Act — Sentence considerations including remand time and prior military training.
 12 September 2008
Babirye & Ors v Uganda (HCT-04-CR-CN-0023/2003) [2008] UGHCCRD 61 (4 September 2008)
4 September 2008
Uganda v Bwambale (Criminal Session Case No. 0044 of 2004) [2008] UGHCCRD 3 (2 September 2008)
Acquittal where identification was unreliable and recent-possession evidence was suspicious and unexplained.
* Criminal law – aggravated robbery – ingredients: theft, violence, deadly weapon, participation of accused; identification evidence of single witness. * Evidence – identification – failure to name assailant promptly; effect on credibility. * Evidence – recent possession – recovery of number plate; suspicious circumstances and need for police investigation testimony. * Circumstantial evidence – must exclude reasonable innocent hypothesis; prosecution burden to call investigating officers.
 2 September 2008
Uganda v Tumuhimbise (Criminal Session Case No. 0077 of 2004) [2008] UGHCCRD 11 (2 September 2008)
Conviction for defilement based on in‑flagrante eyewitness and medical corroboration; sentenced to 13 years imprisonment.
* Criminal law – Defilement – Elements: penetration, victim under 18, identity of perpetrator. * Corroboration – medical evidence (ruptured hymen) and lay observation can corroborate eyewitness sexual-complaint. * Identification – caution required but in-flagrante observation by a familiar witness is reliable. * Proof of age – family testimony and medical assessment admissible. * Sentencing – aggravating circumstances (very young, mentally disabled victim), first offender status and remand credit considered.
 2 September 2008
Uganda v Zoro (Criminal Session Case No. 0078 of 2003) [2008] UGHCCRD 12 (1 September 2008)
Flawed identification parade and precarious eyewitness identification led to acquittal despite proof of theft and use of a deadly weapon.
* Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – ingredients: theft, use of violence, use/threat of deadly weapon, participation of accused. * Identification evidence – single witness identification – necessity for favourable viewing conditions and corroborative support. * Identification parade – mandatory procedural safeguards; Police Form 69; non‑compliance may render identification unsafe. * Circumstantial evidence – recovery of stolen property from a relative’s house insufficient alone to convict.
 1 September 2008