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
3 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
3 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
May 2015
Uganda v Okello & Anor (Criminal Session Case No. 100 of 2012.) [2015] UGHCCRD 5 (26 May 2015)
First accused convicted of murder based on threats, recognition and flight; second accused convicted only of conspiracy due to ID inconsistencies.
Criminal law – Murder – malice aforethought – proof by prior threats, nature of injuries and identification at scene. Identification evidence – discrepancies between police statements and in‑court testimony may undermine conviction. Conspiracy to murder – circumstantial evidence of planning and threats supports conviction where actual participation is not proved. Flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt
Sentence – aggravating (brutality) and mitigating (first offenders, dependants, time on remand) factors
 26 May 2015
Uganda v Namugenyi (Criminal Appeal No. 046 of 2014) [2015] UGHCCRD 26 (25 May 2015)
A caution sentence was manifestly inadequate for forgery and uttering cancelled documents given scant mitigation evidence.
Criminal law – Sentencing discretion – Appeal against manifestly low caution sentences – Need for evidence of mitigation or reparations – Forgery/uttering of judicial documents (revoked Letters of Administration) – Deterrence and gravity of offences.
 25 May 2015
Chour Mohammed v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0123 of 2015) [2015] UGHCCRD 1 (15 May 2015)
Appellate court quashes convictions where prosecution failed to prove forgery, uttering and obtaining money beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law — evaluation of evidence — appellate re-evaluation; Obtaining by false pretences — requirement to prove each payment beyond reasonable doubt; Forgery/uttering — need for direct or forensic linkage; Improper use of generalized evidence and settlement attempts as proof of guilt; Restitution under s.197 MCA requires adequate civil-proof of recoverable sums.
 15 May 2015