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
7 judgments
Advanced search
Skip past years
Skip past months
Filters
Skip to results
7 judgments
February 2021
Sendagi and 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Application 27 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 96 (27 February 2021)
The High Court lacked jurisdiction to rehear the applicants' identical bail-reduction application after an earlier dismissal.
  • Criminal procedure — Bail — High Court power to reduce a magistrate’s bail bond under Section 75(4)(a) Magistrates Courts Act — exercise of discretion requires judicious reasoning. Finality of decision — functus officio — identical repeat application dismissed by the High Court cannot be reheard absent showing of legal error. Revision under Sections 48 and 50 Criminal Procedure Code Act not appropriate for interlocutory bail orders
27 February 2021
Sendagi and Others v Uganda (Criminal Application 27 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 72 (27 February 2021)
High Court cannot rehear an identical bail-reduction application after it has earlier dismissed the same relief.
  • Criminal procedure — Bail — High Court jurisdiction under Section 75(4)(a) Magistrates Courts Act to reduce bail bond — exercise of judicial discretion. Finality of judgments — functus officio/res judicata — identical prior dismissal bars rehearing. Procedural bar — applicant failed to show earlier decision was bad in law; application dismissed
27 February 2021
Uganda v Muwanga and Another (Criminal Session 456 of 2018) [2021] UGHCCRD 3 (12 February 2021)
Two accused acquitted because prosecution failed to prove their common intention or participation in the stabbing despite presence at the scene.
  • Criminal law — Aggravated robbery — Elements: theft, use of force or threat, use of deadly weapon, participation and common intention. Criminal law — Attempted murder — Elements: specific intent to kill and overt act; inference of intent from repeated stabbing
  • Evidence — Identification and charge and caution statements — admissibility and weight; parade identifications corroborated by witnesses; caution statements admitted where proper procedures followed
  • Defences — Alibi and disassociation from co-accused’s violent acts — lack of common intention may negate liability
  • Principle — Prosecution must prove each accused’s participation and common intention beyond reasonable doubt; presence at scene is insufficient without proof of intent or participation
12 February 2021
Uganda v Makeri and 3 Others (Criminal Session 183 of 2018) [2021] UGHCCRD 15 (10 February 2021)
Suspicion from prior threats and motive was insufficient to prove the accused responsible for murder; accused acquitted.
  • Criminal law — Murder — ingredients: death, unlawfulness, malice aforethought, and accused's responsibility
  • Evidence — suspicion and motive (prior threats, love relationship) insufficient without direct or corroborative proof. Criminal procedure — prima facie case requirement; where essential ingredient not proved, accused need not be called to give defence
10 February 2021
Kitongo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 8 (9 February 2021)
Conviction for defilement quashed where age was not proved and PF3A had only identification, with DNA/corroboration unaddressed.
  • Criminal law — Defilement — proof of age — PF3A tendered for identification lacks evidential value unless formally exhibited and supported by testimony; corroboration and forensic testing may be required where paternity is disputed.
9 February 2021
Wafula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 12 (9 February 2021)
A promise to perform future services is not a criminal false pretence; conviction quashed and illegal sentence set aside.
  • Criminal law — obtaining money by false pretences — promise or statement of future intention does not amount to false pretence; requirement to prove fraudulent intent; sentencing — remand credit under Article 23(8); limits on default imprisonment under Magistrates Courts Act; illegal/excessive fines.
9 February 2021
Aboth v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 7 (5 February 2021)
Conviction quashed for lack of transaction evidence; default 36‑month imprisonment unlawful under section 180 MCA.
  • Theft — mobile‑money agent line — necessity of transaction printouts to prove deposit and disappearance of funds; confession evidence — caution statement must be produced and authoring officer may need to testify; sentencing — default imprisonment limits under section 180 Magistrates Courts Act (maximum 12 months for fines exceeding Shs.100,000/=).
5 February 2021