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

11 judgments

Advanced search

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

11 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
June 2021
Bukenya v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCRD 62 (23 June 2021) Interlocutory 'no case' rulings are not revisable; civil and criminal proceedings may proceed concurrently. Criminal procedure – Revision – Interlocutory orders (no‑case-to‑answer) are not revisable; revision confined to final orders. Criminal v civil proceedings – Distinct remedies; criminal and civil cases may proceed concurrently; pending civil suit does not automatically stay criminal prosecution. Accused’s claim of right must be raised and proved in defence or civil suit; DPP retains prerogative to institute or discontinue prosecutions.	23 June 2021
Bukenya v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCRD 83 (23 June 2021) The applicant cannot seek revision of an interlocutory 'no case to answer' ruling; civil and criminal matters may proceed concurrently. Criminal procedure — Revision — Revision confined to final orders; interlocutory 'no case to answer' rulings not revisable. Civil v criminal — Concurrent proceedings allowed; pending civil suit not an automatic stay of criminal prosecution. Defence of claim of right — Ownership disputes to be raised and proved at trial. Prosecutorial discretion — DPP retains prerogative to prefer and maintain criminal charges.	23 June 2021
Mukose v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 60 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCRD 103 (17 June 2021) Appellate court confirmed nuisance and unlawful boarding-extension convictions based on unchallenged inspection reports and photographs. Public Health Act (s57) – common nuisance – insanitary/dilapidated premises; Education Act (s38, s40(c)) – unlawful administration of school extension/boarding without permission; evidentiary weight of local authority inspection reports and photographs where authenticity not specifically challenged; appellate re-evaluation of trial evidence and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.	17 June 2021
Mukose v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 60 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCRD 109 (17 June 2021) Appellate court confirmed convictions for nuisance and unlawful boarding extension based on inspection reports and photographs. Public Health Act – nuisance – premises so dirty, dilapidated or overcrowded as to be injurious to health – inspection reports and photographs as evidence. Education Act 2008 – administering or permitting an unapproved boarding extension – requirement to seek classification/approval. Criminal appellate review – duty to re-evaluate evidence, allowance for not having seen/heard witnesses. Locus visit – relevance and effect where trial magistrate visited and appellant admitted same. Evidentiary principle – failure to specifically challenge inspection reports/photographs treated as acceptance.	17 June 2021
Mukose v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 60 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCRD 75 (17 June 2021) Appeal dismissed; convictions for public health nuisance and unapproved boarding extension confirmed. Public Health Act (s.57) – what constitutes a nuisance; Education Act (s.40(c)) – administering an extension/boarding section without permission; admissibility and probative value of inspection reports and photographic exhibits; appellate re-evaluation of trial evidence and effect of failure to challenge documentary evidence.	17 June 2021
Musoke v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 60 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCRD 69 (17 June 2021) Appellate court confirmed convictions for public-health nuisance and unlicensed boarding based on inspection reports and photographs. Criminal law – nuisance under Public Health Act (s.57) – sufficiency of inspection reports and photographic evidence; Education Act 2008 (s.40(c)) – administration of unlicensed boarding extension; appellate review – locus visit and re-evaluation of evidence.	17 June 2021
Barasa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 95 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 112 (14 June 2021) Appellate court affirmed theft conviction: property, conversion and participation proven; confession admissible; contradictions immaterial. Criminal law – Theft – elements: property, fraudulent conversion, participation – proof beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence – Admission of charge and caution statement – requirement to exclude for violence, threat, inducement or promise; mere name‑order objection insufficient. Evidence – Failure to cross‑examine on material facts permits inference of acceptance; photographs admissible to prove stock existence. Evidence – Inconsistencies and delay that are minor do not necessarily vitiate otherwise corroborated prosecution case.	14 June 2021
Barasa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 95 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 58 (14 June 2021) Appellate court upheld theft conviction, finding property, conversion and participation proved and confession properly admitted. Criminal law – Theft – Elements: property, fraudulent conversion and participation; Admission – Charge and caution statement – admissibility where no evidence of violence, threat or inducement; Evidence – Contradictions and inconsistencies – materiality and effect on credibility; Appellate review – re‑evaluation of evidence by first appellate court.	14 June 2021
Barasa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 95 of 2019) [2021] UGHCCRD 79 (14 June 2021) Appellate court affirmed theft conviction, finding confession admissible and evidence sufficient despite minor contradictions. Criminal law — Theft — elements: existence of property, fraudulent conversion, participation by accused — sufficiency of evidence. Evidence — Charge and caution statement — admissibility where objection is limited to procedural detail (name order) and no allegation of violence, inducement or threat. Evidence evaluation — Minor inconsistencies do not vitiate conviction if core facts are corroborated. Appellate review — Fresh scrutiny permitted; appellate court may affirm conviction where confession and corroborative evidence establish guilt.	14 June 2021
Mutebi v Uganda (HCT-00-CR-CM 88 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCRD 38 (4 June 2021) Bail denied where alleged exceptional circumstances were unproven and serious charges posed risks of interference or absconding. Bail — constitutional right to apply for bail; court’s discretion under Trial on Indictments Act s.14–15. Exceptional circumstances — burden of proof; medical evidence and personal attendance. Proof of residence and sureties — LC1 letters as evidence. Seriousness of charges and public interest — risk of absconding or interfering with investigations.	4 June 2021
Ssentongo v Uganda (HCT-00-CR-CM 100 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCRD 51 (4 June 2021) Bail refused where alleged grave illness was unproven and ongoing investigations plus offence gravity risked interference or absconding. Criminal procedure – Bail pending trial – Discretion under Trial on Indictments Act s.14–15 and Article 23(6)(a) – Requirement to prove exceptional circumstances (grave illness) – Risk of interference with investigations and absconding in serious offences.	4 June 2021