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
December 2011
Teddy Ssezzi Cheye v Uganda [2011] UGSC 19 (21 December 2011)
Appeal dismissed: embezzlement and forgery convictions upheld; compensation to donor validated.
Criminal law – Embezzlement – s.268(b) Penal Code Act – director and sole signatory accessing company funds; special knowledge and proof by silence (s.105 Evidence Act). Criminal law – Forgery – ss.342, 347 Penal Code Act – procuring another to forge documents – s.19(2). Evidence – Adverse inference from accused’s silence where facts are especially within accused’s knowledge – s.105 Evidence Act. Remedies – Compensation to third-party donor (aggrieved party) where donor’s funds misappropriated.
 21 December 2011
Matumbwe v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 8 of 2008) [2011] UGSC 28 (6 December 2011)
Slight vaginal penetration proved by medical and circumstantial evidence suffices for defilement; conviction restored, sentence reduced to 15 years.
Criminal law – Sexual offences – Defilement – Proof of penetration – slightest penetration sufficient even if hymen not ruptured; medical and circumstantial evidence may suffice; appellate review of speculative inferences; mitigation of sentence from life to fixed term.
 6 December 2011
Mutumba William v Uganda (Criminal Appeal) [2011] UGSC 14 (6 December 2011)
Slight vaginal penetration evidenced by inflammation and bruising can sustain a defilement conviction despite an intact hymen.
Criminal law – Defilement – Proof of penetration – Slightest penetration sufficient; hymen need not be ruptured – Medical evidence of inflammation/bruising and credible circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction – Absence of victim’s testimony not fatal where other credible evidence exists – Sentencing discretion and mitigation from life to 15 years.
 6 December 2011
Stanbic Bank Ltd v Kiyemba Mutale [2011] UGSC 18 (6 December 2011)
Wrongful dismissal entitles an employee to damages and accrued entitlements, not speculative retrenchment-style terminal benefits.
Employment law – Wrongful/unlawful dismissal – Measure of damages – Employee cannot claim future contractual remuneration after termination; remedy is damages, payment in lieu of notice and accrued entitlements; retrenchment/voluntary-retirement schemes cannot be used to create post-termination contractual rights.
 6 December 2011
Stanbic Bank Ltd v Kiyemba Mutale (Civil Appeal 2 of 2010) [2011] UGSC 32 (6 December 2011)
Wrongful summary dismissal merits payment in lieu of notice, accrued entitlements and damages; speculative terminal benefits cannot be awarded.
Employment law – Wrongful/unlawful dismissal – Specific performance generally unavailable – Measure of compensation limited to payment in lieu of notice, accrued contractual entitlements and damages; terminal/retirement benefits speculative and not recoverable where contract does not provide – Courts must avoid awards based on conjecture. Procedural note: Employment Act 2006 may affect reinstatement remedies in later cases.
 6 December 2011