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
5 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
5 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
May 1998
Nsubuga and 3 Others v Kamuje (Civil Application 31 of 97) [1998] UGSC 33 (22 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
Kamesere Henry v Uganda [1998] UGSC 21 (15 May 1998)
Criminal law
 15 May 1998
Kamesere Moses v Uganda [1998] UGSC 13 (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
Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 10 of 1997) [1998] UGSC 20 (15 May 1998)

Criminal law

 15 May 1998
Ogwang v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 3 of 1997) [1998] UGSC 27 (15 May 1998)

Criminal law

 15 May 1998