Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search
background image
profile image

Supreme Court of Uganda

The Supreme Court of Uganda is the highest judicial organ in Uganda. It derives powers from Article 130 of the 1995 constitution. It is primarily an appellate court with original jurisdiction in only one type of case: a presidential election petition.

The Supreme Court is headed by the chief justice nd has ten other justices. The quorum required for a court decision varies depending on the type of case under consideration. When hearing a constitutional appeal, the required quorum is seven justices. In a criminal or a civil appeal, only five justices are required for a quorum.

 

Physical address
Plot M105, Kinawataka Road, Mbuya 1, Kampala, Uganda
Visit website
http://www.judiciary.go.ug/data/smenu/7/Supreme
4 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
4 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
January 1995
Hadija Kakibuka v Attorney General of Uganda (Civil Appeal 11/1993) [1995] UGSC 43 (19 January 1995)
Appeal dismissed: insufficient evidence of marriage, employment, accident and dependency; omission to frame issue not fatal.
Civil procedure – framing of issues (Order 13 CPR) – omission to frame an issue not necessarily fatal where pleadings show dispute; Evidence – burden and standard in dependency claims – requirement to prove marriage, employment, accident and produce death/post‑mortem/police report; Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act – dependency claims require particulars of dependants (names, ages, relationships) and courts should guard against fictitious dependants.
 19 January 1995
Nakibuka v Attorney General Of Uganda (Civil Appeal 11 of 1993) [1995] UGSC 36 (19 January 1995)
The appellant failed to prove marriage, accident and dependency; appeal dismissed for lack of probative evidence.
Civil procedure – framing of issues (Order 13) – omission not necessarily fatal; Evidence – burden on plaintiff to prove facts on balance of probabilities; Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act – dependency claims require particulars and production of dependants; importance of documentary corroboration (death certificate, post‑mortem, police report); courts must guard against fictitious claims.
 19 January 1995
Katende Semakula v Uganda [1995] UGSC 4 (16 January 1995)
Conviction based on recent possession of alleged stolen property was unsafe where ownership, exclusive possession and alternative explanations were not excluded.
Criminal law – Circumstantial evidence – Recent and exclusive possession – necessity to prove stolen property belonged to victim and to exclude receipt or other explanations before drawing inference of guilt. Evidence – Bad character/antecedents – prejudicial nature and inadmissibility to prove commission of charged offence. Appellate review – Misapplication of legal tests on circumstantial evidence renders conviction unsafe.
 16 January 1995
Hadija Nakibuka v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 11 of 1993) [1995] UGSC 6 (11 January 1995)

 

 11 January 1995