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
10 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
10 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
June 2019
Uganda v Amitingo & Ors (HCT – 00 – CR – SC – 0459 – 2017) [2019] UGHCCRD 35 (27 June 2019)
27 June 2019
Uganda v Ayinamani (HCT – 00 – CR – SC – 0384 – 2017) [2019] UGHCCRD 434 (27 June 2019)
27 June 2019
Uganda v Kiyemba & Ors (Criminal Session Case No. 56 of 2018) [2019] UGHCCRD 50 (25 June 2019)
Death, unlawfulness and malice proved, but accused acquitted due to hearsay and lack of evidence linking them to the killing.
Criminal law – Murder: elements (death, unlawful act, malice aforethought, causation); Evidence – hearsay inadmissibility (Evidence Act ss.58–59); Forensic evidence – post‑mortem establishing strangulation; Identification/causation – requirement for direct or reliable circumstantial proof; Investigative witnesses – need to call sniffer dog handler where relied upon.
 25 June 2019
Uganda v Ainomugisha Matson (Criminal Session Case No.28 of 2018) [2019] UGHCCRD 456 (21 June 2019)
Prosecution proved aggravated defilement beyond reasonable doubt; juvenile convicted but cautioned under the Children’s Act.
Criminal law – Aggravated defilement – elements: age of victim, sexual penetration, identity of offender; Evidence – victim’s testimony corroborated by medical report (ruptured hymen) sufficient for proof beyond reasonable doubt; Identification – cohabitation and contemporaneous sighting reduce risk of mistaken identity; Burden of proof – remains on prosecution; conviction may follow despite accused’s silence and assessors’ contrary opinion; Children’s law – sentencing juveniles; caution under section 94(1)(b) of the Children’s Act as a non-custodial disposal.
 21 June 2019
Uganda v Lule David (Criminal Session Case No. 22 of 2017) [2019] UGHCCRD 53 (21 June 2019)
Prosecution failed to prove aggravated defilement beyond reasonable doubt due to inconclusive medical evidence and testimonial inconsistencies.
Criminal law – Aggravated defilement – Ingredients: victim’s age, sexual act (penetration), disability, identification – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Medical evidence versus victim testimony – Credibility, contradictions and motive (grudge) as grounds for reasonable doubt.
 21 June 2019
Birungi v Uganda (Criminal Revision No.01 of 2018) [2019] UGHCCRD 52 (17 June 2019)
A magistrate cannot, after a final compensation order, condition beneficiaries' payment on production of Letters of Administration.
Criminal revision; compensation under s.197 Magistrates Courts Act; requirement for Letters of Administration; functus officio; payment to complainants/relatives.
 17 June 2019
Uganda v Misavu & Anor (Criminal Session No.18 of 2018) [2019] UGHCCRD 57 (7 June 2019)
Accused convicted of aggravated robbery on reliable identification and weapons evidence; acquitted of rape and sentenced with remand credit.
Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – elements: theft, violence, use/threat of deadly weapon, participation/identification. Evidence – identification at scene by victims using motorcycle light and prior acquaintance; reliability of identification. Criminal law – Acquittal for rape where proof insufficient. Sentencing – aggravating/mitigating factors and credit for time on remand.
 7 June 2019
Uganda v Mutabazi Aron (Criminal Session Case No. 118 of 2017) [2019] UGHCCRD 58 (7 June 2019)
Accused acquitted where prosecution failed to prove penetration, non‑consent and identity beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Rape: essential ingredients (penetration, lack of consent, identity) – proof beyond reasonable doubt – role of medical evidence – effect of inconsistencies in identification evidence.
 7 June 2019
Uganda v Ndifuna Constantine (Criminal Session Case No. 68/2018) [2019] UGHCCRD 60 (7 June 2019)
Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of aggravated robbery and rape; accused acquitted under s.73(1).
Criminal law – burden of proof; prima facie case required before calling accused to defence – identification and credibility of witness and sniffer dog evidence – weight of medical evidence in rape allegations – acquittal under s.73(1) Trial on Indictment Act.
 7 June 2019
Uganda v Ssebunya Hamuza (Criminal Session No. 0069 of 2018) [2019] UGHCCRD 61 (7 June 2019)
Acquittal where theft and violence were shown but identity and proof of rape were not established beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Elements: theft, violence, use of deadly weapon, accused’s participation/identification. Evidence – Visual identification – Reliability where identification made in darkness and through a small aperture. Sexual offences – Rape – Necessity of victim testimony or medical corroboration to prove intercourse and identity. Criminal burden – Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of every essential ingredient.
 7 June 2019