|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1998 |
|
|
|
15 December 1998 |
|
Supreme Court upheld convictions, finding identification and rape evidence reliable; defilement omission not fatal and intoxication unproven.
Criminal law – Identification evidence: adequacy of lighting, proximity, familiarity and duration – Rape v. defilement: charging minors; effect of omission – Alibi and intoxication defences: evidentiary burden and relevance.
|
3 December 1998 |
|
Appeal dismissed: identification and rape convictions upheld; failure to charge defilement not fatal to prosecution.
Criminal law – Identification evidence – availability of light, duration, proximity and witness familiarity; Rape and defilement – applicability of S.117 to girls and effect of not charging defilement; Alibi and intoxication defences – necessity of evidential basis; Appeal – affirmation of conviction where trial and appellate courts properly evaluated evidence.
|
3 December 1998 |
| November 1998 |
|
|
Single justice may order further security for costs under Rule 100(3); respondent in receivership ordered to deposit UGX 50,000,000 per applicant.
Civil procedure – Security for costs – Rule 100(3) Supreme Court Rules – power to order further security at any time; single justice jurisdiction to hear ancillary applications; interplay with s.404 Companies Act; receivership/insolvency and entitlement to security; effect of delay in bringing application.
|
30 November 1998 |
|
Speculative intoxication/insanity claims without evidence insufficient; conviction and sentence affirmed.
Criminal law – murder – defences of insanity and intoxication – accused must adduce evidence to establish insanity or drug-induced incapacity – mere speculation or failure to identify drug insufficient – prosecution proved sanity beyond reasonable doubt.
|
7 November 1998 |
|
The applicant failed to prove insanity or intoxication; conviction for murder affirmed and appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – murder; insanity and intoxication defences – burden of proof lies on accused to adduce evidence to establish insanity/intoxication; speculative assertions unsupported by evidence insufficient; appellate review of assessors’ opinion and trial judge’s handling of medical evidence.
|
7 November 1998 |
| October 1998 |
|
|
|
2 October 1998 |
|
Appellate re-evaluation upheld identification and circumstantial evidence; additional evidence not warranted, appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – appeal – appellate re-appraisal of evidence under Rule 290(a); identification evidence – recognition in good lighting and prior acquaintance; circumstantial evidence – presumption from recent possession of stolen property; Court of Appeal’s discretion to call additional evidence under Rule 29(1)(b) – exceptional cases only.
|
2 October 1998 |
|
Appeal dismissed: identification and circumstantial possession evidence supported conviction; no additional evidence warranted.
Criminal appeal — appellate re-appraisal of evidence — reliability of identification evidence — circumstantial evidence: recent possession of stolen property — appellate discretion to call additional evidence under Rule 29 (R v Parks principles).
|
2 October 1998 |
|
A single identifying witness's evidence, when thoroughly vetted, need not be corroborated if deemed reliable and accurate.
Criminal law - Evidence - Identification - Single witness - Corroboration of identification evidence - Appellate court duties in re-evaluation.
|
1 October 1998 |
|
|
1 October 1998 |
| July 1998 |
|
|
|
15 July 1998 |
|
Confession and corroborating evidence upheld conviction; capital charge requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, not a higher standard.
* Criminal law – confessional statements – admissibility and voluntariness – Judges’ Rules govern confessions after repeal of old police statement rules. * Evidence – corroboration of confessions by possession of stolen property and extra‑judicial admissions. * Standard of proof – capital offences require proof beyond reasonable doubt; no higher legal standard. * Civil procedure – non‑compliant memorandum of appeal; courts may allow amendment. * Evidence – inadmissible or irrelevant character evidence should be excluded.
|
13 July 1998 |
|
Whether an allegedly defective confession is admissible and whether capital offences require a higher standard than beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Confession – admissibility – recording irregularities and alleged coercion – Judges' Rules govern confessions pending regulations under Evidence Act.
* Criminal law – Corroboration – possession of deceased’s property, photographs at scene and admissions to third parties as corroborative evidence.
* Evidence – Repeal of Evidence (Statements to Police Officers) Rules; confessions regulated by Judges' Rules until new regulations.
* Standard of proof – Capital cases: no higher standard than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
13 July 1998 |
Civil Procedure|Jurisdiction
|
8 July 1998 |
|
Criminal law|Evidence Law|Evaluation of Evidence
|
6 July 1998 |
| May 1998 |
|
|
Filing a notice of appeal before the 1995 Constitution rendered the appeal "pending" and saved it under Article 280 and Section 9.
Constitutional transitional provisions – Article 280 and Constitution (Consequential Provisions) Statute 12 of 1996 s.9 – meaning of "pending"; Civil procedure – commencement of appeal by filing notice of appeal (Rule 74(1)) – effect of filing before promulgation of new constitution; procedural irregularities and struck-out applications – whether they defeat transitional protection; slip-rule (Rule 35) not available for reviving substantive steps.
|
22 May 1998 |
|
Criminal law
|
15 May 1998 |
|
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the sole criminal standard; identification evidence here sufficed, appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Standard of proof – Proof beyond reasonable doubt is single standard for all crimes; observations about 'degrees' refer to fact‑finding, not separate legal standards; Identification evidence – eye‑witness identification evaluated and upheld; Alibi – properly rejected as fabricated; Circumstantial evidence – footprint and sandals inconclusive and not essential.
|
15 May 1998 |
|
|
15 May 1998 |
|
|
15 May 1998 |
| March 1998 |
|
|
Appellant's later claim fails; earlier purchase upheld and customary non-compliance did not void respondents' title.
Land law – Kibanja transfers; proof and effect of customary practices (introduction and Kanzu); Land Reform Decree 1975 (ss.4–5) limiting customary incidents; validity of unsigned sale agreements; burden and particulars for fraud; priority of earlier purchaser where equities are equal.
|
26 March 1998 |
|
|
26 March 1998 |
|
Delay, laches and misapplied procedural remedy justified dismissal and refusal to restore the land claim; appeal dismissed with costs.
Civil procedure — dismissal for want of prosecution; Order 15 r.5 — applicability where defendant fixed suit for hearing after adjournments; Review under Order 42 r.2 misconceived where dismissal should be set aside under court’s rules (Order 9); Inherent jurisdiction — Section 10 Civil Procedure Act; Laches and inordinate delay — refusal to restore action.
|
25 March 1998 |
|
Contract Law|Formation and validity of Contract|Contract Formation|Performance of contract|Specific Performance
|
25 March 1998 |
|
Land
|
25 March 1998 |
|
Civil Procedure|Appeals and reviews
|
24 March 1998 |
|
Land
|
24 March 1998 |
| February 1998 |
|
|
|
2 February 1998 |
| January 1998 |
|
|
|
28 January 1998 |
|
Civil Procedure|Limitation Period
|
22 January 1998 |
|
Appeal dismissed: action against a scheduled corporation was time‑barred; alleged suspension or mistake arguments failed.
Limitation law – Act 20 of 1969 – actions in tort against scheduled corporations – section 2(1)(c) twelve‑month bar; section 4 (disability extension) and section 5 (mistake) – suspension/tolling of limitation – pleading requirements for mistake.
|
22 January 1998 |
|
Criminal law
|
15 January 1998 |
|
Criminal law
|
7 January 1998 |
