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

9 judgments

Advanced search

Browse by year

Browse by month

Filter documents by title

Sort documents by

9 judgments


March 2015
Uganda v Babalanda & Anor (Criminal Appeal No. 055 of 2010) [2015] UGHCCRD 28 (26 March 2015) Criminal law	26 March 2015
Bossa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 056 of 2008) [2015] UGHCCRD 35 (17 March 2015) Criminal law	17 March 2015
Okiror v Uganda (Criminal Revision Cause No. 003 of 2010) [2015] UGHCCRD 34 (17 March 2015) Criminal law	17 March 2015
Uganda v Komakech & Ors (HCT – 02 – CR – SC – 0252 of 2012) [2015] UGHCCRD 10 (12 March 2015) Five convicted of murder for mob beating a child; sixth convicted of negligent act causing death. Criminal law — Murder — Common intention and malice aforethought in mob-justice killing — Participation and causation — Liability of multiple assailants for fatal beating under s.20 Penal Code Act — Negligent act causing death — Conviction under s.227 where mens rea for murder not proved	12 March 2015
Tugume & anor v Uganda (HCT-OO-CR-CN-0112-2014) [2015] UGHCCRD 7 (10 March 2015) Failure to put a summary of facts before a guilty plea vitiates conviction and requires retrial. Criminal procedure — Plea of guilty — Requirement that a summary of facts disclosing all ingredients be put to the accused — Adan v Republic rule — Plea acceptance — Plea must be an unequivocal admission of all elements of the offence — Remedy — Failure to comply with Adan rule warrants quashing of conviction and retrial — Criminal Procedure Code s 34(2)	10 March 2015
Uganda v Ocitti (HCT-02-CR-SC-0149-2014) [2015] UGHCCRD 2 (9 March 2015) Accused convicted of aggravated defilement of two children; victim testimony and medical evidence proved guilt. Criminal law — Sexual offences — Aggravated defilement — Proof by victim testimony corroborated by medical evidence — Penal Code s 129(7)(a) — Sentencing — Aggravating and mitigating factors in aggravated defilement — starting point under sentencing guidelines and consecutive terms	9 March 2015
Uganda v Ojara (HCT – 02- CR – SC – 0364 – 2014) [2015] UGHCCRD 6 (9 March 2015) Conviction and 40-year sentence for aggravated defilement of a breastfeeding child proven by medical and eyewitness evidence. Criminal law — Sexual offences — Aggravated defilement — Definition of sexual act; presence of seminal stains and tender genitalia as evidence of sexual act under s.129(7)(a) — Evidence — Identification and corpus delicti — Eyewitness who catches accused in the act plus medical corroboration sufficient to prove identity and offence beyond reasonable doubt	9 March 2015
Musiita v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 055 of 2014) [2015] UGHCCRD 20 (5 March 2015) Appeal against arson conviction dismissed: identification upheld, alibi unsubstantiated, four‑year sentence affirmed. Criminal law — Arson — Visual identification at scene of fire — Reliability of identification aided by light from burning structure Criminal procedure — Alibi — Burden on prosecution to rebut alibi; insufficiency of uncorroborated alibi Sentencing — Discretion — Consideration of mitigating factors (age, first offender) and appropriateness of custodial term	5 March 2015
Sekatawa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 037 of 2014) [2015] UGHCCRD 33 (5 March 2015) Conviction based mainly on an uncorroborated sniffer-dog trail and an unlinked exhibit was unsafe; appeal allowed. Criminal law — Evidence — Reliance on sniffer dog — Requirement for corroboration in circumstantial cases — Chain of custody — Break in handling of exhibited property undermines evidential value Criminal law — Circumstantial evidence — Must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence	5 March 2015