The Commercial Case Law Index is a collection of judgments from African countries on topics relating to commercial legal practice. The collection aims to provide a snapshot of commercial legal practice in a country, rather than present solely traditionally "reportable" cases. The index currently covers 400 judgments from Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana and South Africa.
Get started on finding judgments that are relevant to you by browsing the topic list on the left of the screen. Click the arrows next to the topic names to reveal a detailed list of sub-topics. Most judgments are accompanied by a short summary written by subject-matter expert postgraduate students from the University of Cape Town.
The appellant was charged and found guilty of obtaining money under false pretenses; he then brought an appeal against the ruling of the High Court before the appellate court.
The court was faced with two issues, the first being whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant on allegations of misrepresentation not covered in the charge. The second issue was whether the high court was correct to convict the appellant for misrepresentation and seize his property.
The court held that the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant and that the allegations of misrepresentation were covered in the charge. The court further held that the High Court made no error in seizing the appellant’s property following the conviction.
By evaluating witness testimonies and the evidence led in the High Court, the court stated that the appellant had indeed misrepresented himself to the witnesses so they could part with monies and invests with the appellant. The court was of the view that sufficient evidence was led in the High Court which justified the conviction of the appellant. Regarding the seizure of property, the court stated that the High Court exercised its inherent powers to make an order of forfeiture since the appellant bought and used the property to carry out his illegal operations for which he was convicted.
The appeal was unsuccessful and the judgement of the High Court (conviction and sentence) was upheld.
The appellant was indicated for aggravated robbery he was acquitted of the charge but was convicted of the offence of simple robbery and sentenced to 81/2years imprisonment plus six strokes of the cane and was also ordered to compensate the complainant in the sum of Shs.250,000/= and to undergo police supervision of an unspecified period after his release from custody being aggrieved he appeal against the sentence.
The appellant part of the group of police officers chasing after a stolen vehicle
was indicted for murder when he shot and killed a fellow officer in the
operation. The appeal was against the decision of the Court of Appeal which
rejected the appellant's appeal against his conviction by the trial court.
The first complaint on appeal was the alleged improper admission of the dying
declaration by the trial court. The court observed that among the officers at
the scene of crime it was only the appellant who had admitted firing his gun
and the court had properly corroborated the dying declaration which was not
This was an appeal against conviction on grounds that, the trail judge erred when he failed to direct himself on the serious contradictions in the prosecution evidence concerning evidence of arrest of the appellants, dress code, and evidence of the identifying witnesses. The court however, found that the contradictions were minor and did not indicate any falsehood in the prosecution evidence.
Further, counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to produce the blood stained clothes before court, and that it failed to call the investigating officer. The court found that the appellants had been arrested during broad day light and that they were well known to the prosecution, thus, failure to produce the blood stained clothes did not affect the decision of the judge. Further, it was found that, the absence of the investigating officer did not weaken the prosecution evidence in any way.
Counsel for the appellant further argued that the court wrongly rejected the appellants’ alibi.
The appellants were jointly convicted the murder and
aggravated robbery and were sentenced to death on each
count. They appealed against the conviction and sentences.
This was an appeal from conviction and sentence of twelve year’s imprisonment. The ground of appeal was, that the court of appeal erred in law and fact in confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant on insufficient evidence.
The appellant with another were tried and
convicted for murder. They were sentenced to
death. They appealed to the court of appeal but
the other died and hence his appeal abated. The
appeal of the appellant was dismissed hence
this appeal on the ground that the learned
Justices of Appeal grossly erred in law and fact
when having found that the confession was
inadmissible, failed to reevaluate the evidence
before upholding the conviction. The
background is that the deceased and his wife
were asleep and were attacked by the
assailants. When he woke up to check, he was
shot dead. The prosecution obtained a
confession which on appeal was said to be
illegal and its against the background that the
judge erred in dismissing the appeal even after
faulting the confession.
The Appellants were tried for and convicted by the High Court of
murder. Their appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. They
appealed on only one ground, namely that the key witness could not
have identified the attackers' of the deceased.
This is a second appeal by the appellant
against his conviction and sentence for murder
by the High Court after his first appeal to the
Court of Appeal was dismissed. The
background is that appellant one afternoon
appeared from the bush and cut the head of
the deceased off and ran away with the head.
He directed the prosecution where the head
and the weapon were hidden but at trial, he
denied committing the offence and pleaded
alibi but was convicted and the appeal was not
successful hence the appeal on the grounds
that the appellant was suffering from a mental
illness and that there was improper evaluation
The appellants were convicted and sentenced to death by the
High Court sitting at Fort-Portal on 11.1.00, for aggravated
robbery committed in the night of 17.3.98, at the house of
Bagonza Jackson, within Fort-Portal Municipality. The Court
of Appeal upheld the convictions and sentences. The two
appellants have appealed to this Court against the decision of
the Court of Appeal.
Court considered whether the trial judge erred in holding that
the weapons used were deadly.
Court ruled that in holding that the instruments used in this
robbery fit into the statutory definition of a deadly weapon,
the learned trial judge not only took into account the common
knowledge that knives and pangas are used for stabbing and
cutting, but also inferred that what the witnesses saw, and
subsequently described to the court, were real knives and
pangas, and not imitations.
In the circumstances of the instant case, the trial judge had no
cause to doubt that the weapons were what the witnesses
described them to be. Accordingly, it was not an error to hold
that the weapons were deadly, and that all the ingredients of
the offence were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Court accordingly dismissed the appeal.
The appellant, was indicted, tried and
convicted in the High Court for aggravated
robbery. He was sentenced to death. His appeal
to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful.
Hence this appeal. The ground of appeal is that
the appellate court didn’t properly evaluate the
evidence on record and wrongly upheld the
finding of the trial judge that the prosecution
proved all the ingredients of robbery against
This was an appeal against conviction for defilement and sentence of 15 year’s imprisonment and corporal punishment. The appellant argued that he had been wrongly convicted of defilement, and that the sentence of 15 years was too harsh in the circumstances.
From the evidence on record, the court found no merit in the appeal against conviction as the appellant was found red-handed defiling the complainant, and the prosecution had proved to the satisfaction of court that the appellant was guilty of the offence. The appeal against conviction was therefore dismissed.
This is a second appeal. The two appellants were jointly indicted in
the High Court with the offence of murder and in the alternative, with
robbery. Both appellants were convicted of murder and sentenced to
death. No finding was made on the alternative count of robbery. They
appealed to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence, the
appeal was dismissed.
This is a second appeal. The appellants were tried and convicted by
the High Court for aggravated robbery and were sentenced to death.
Their appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. They appealed to
The appellant was indicted on a charge of defilement; he was
duly convicted and sentenced and his first appeal to the Court
of Appeal was dismissed hence the second appeal.
The first ground on appeal was a complaint about reevaluation
of evidence by the trial court and the court observed that the
appellate court had made its own findings and conclusions
before upholding the trial court’s orders.
This was application to stay the continuation of the trial on
grounds that the applicant should be allowed to exhaust his
right of appeal.
Court considered whether the applicant had a right of appeal.
Court ruled that the right of appeal of an accused person
appearing in a magistrates Court is conferred by section 216
of the Magistrates Act, 1970 and section 6 (5) of Judicature
Statute. Clearly the above provisions do not confer a right of
appeal to the High Court in respect of interlocutor’s matter,
i.e., discretionary orders or rulings of the Chief Magistrate in
criminal matters. Article 257 (1) of the Constitution interprets
the word "judgment” to include a decision, an order or decree
of a Court". Court was of the view that this interpretation
means a final decision of a court, but not a discretionary order
or ruling in an interlocutory matter such as a finding that there
is a prima facie case as the Chief Magistrate did.
Court accordingly dismissed the application.
The appellant appealed against decision of the Court of Appeal on grounds that,
the learned Justices of Appeal failed to re-evaluate the evidence on record and
that they erred when they upheld the decision of the High Court without
considering some of the evidence, thereby reaching a wrong conclusion.
The first appellant, a former minister of state in charge of
security in the Obote government, ordered the kidnap of
people suspected to be guerrillas and they were eventually
killed by the second appellant and others. He was convicted
of five counts of kidnapping with intent to murder whereas
the second appellant was convicted on six counts of murder
and both appealed.
The appellant appealed against his conviction for robbery
contrary to sections 272 and 273 (2) (now 285 and 286(2))
of the Penal Code Act but the entire record of the trial court
irretrievably lost. He asserted that his appeal had been
The appellant was indicted and convicted of
aggravated robbery by the high court. He was
sentenced to death. He appealed to the court of
appeal on the ground of mistaken identity but
the court of appeal upheld the orders of the
high court and that the appellant had been
properly identified hence this appeal on the
grounds of improper evaluation and failure to
consider the appellants alibi.
This was an application for extension of time. The
application is by a notice of motion dated 7 th November
2002. It was lodged under the provisions of section 99 of
Civil Procedure Act, Rules 4, 41(1)(2) and 42(1) of the
Supreme Court Rules 1996.
Court considered whether the application would be
Court ruled that a person swearing an affidavit in support
of an application of this nature must have knowledge of
the facts involved. In the instant case the person who
knew the reasons relating to the delay in filing the
submissions is Silver Ahimbisibwe who, for reasons
unknown to the court, did not swear any affidavit. In the
absence of Ahimbisibwe's evidence in form of an affidavit
or otherwise, what Mr. Makeera stated regarding what
Ahimbisibwe did or failed to do is mere hearsay and of no
help to the applicant's application. The situation cannot be
cured by merely stating the source of information, as Mr.
Makeera would like the court to believe.
In view of the fact that the affidavit in support of this
application is riddled with falsehood and it was a mere
hearsay, court found that the application had not been
supported by a valid affidavit as is required by rule 42(1)
of the rules of the supreme court. That being the position,
there was no evidence to establish that the applicant had
sufficient reasons, within the meaning of rule 4 of the
rules of this court, which prevented him from filing the
submissions on time.
Court accordingly dismissed the application.
The deceased was attacked by a single assailant who
brutally cut his the head with a panga and died in hospital
where he was rushed after the attack. The appellant was
indicted and convicted of the deceased’s murder and he
The appellant, while he worked as a barman, stabbed the
deceased in the chest after a fight that ensued when he
denied owing the deceased any change. He was convicted
of manslaughter contrary to section 182 of the Penal Code
Act, sentenced to 15 years imprisonment and he appealed.
The appellant, Haji Makubo Nakulopa together with Sulaiman
Makika were jointly tried and convicted by the High Court
sitting at Jinja for murder in 1 st count and aggravated robbery
in 2 nd count. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, Sulaiman
Mukika's appeal was allowed while that of the appellant was
dismissed on both counts.
Court considered whether the trail judge erred when it
admitted a confession without conducting a trial within a trial.
Court ruled that a trial within trial is conducted when a
confession statement is objected to on such grounds as that
the appellant was tortured or induced for the purpose of
making the confession statement. In the instant case, the
appellant stated that after his arrest on 26/10/94, he was
assaulted and tortured as a result of which he became
unconscious. He does not state that he made the confession
statement because of being tortured. In fact, he does not state
that he made any confession statement before a magistrate. In
the circumstances we think that if there had been any threat
caused by such torture on his arrest on 26/10/94 then any such
threat caused by such torture must have been removed by the
lapse of time between the time he was arrested and when he
made the statement on 3/11/94.
Court accordingly found that the confession statement was
made voluntarily and was rightly admitted.
The appellants allegedly robbed the complainant of a
mercedes benz at gun point. They were convicted of
robbery contrary to sections 272 and 273(1) (now 285 and
286(1)) of the Penal Code Act and they appealed
contending that they were not accorded a fair hearing
because their counsel was absent at the commencement of
the trial and as such, the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses wasn’t challenged by cross-examination.
The appellant together with another were indicted and tried in the
High Court, they were convicted and sentenced to death. They
appealed to the Court of Appeal against their convictions and
sentences which allowed the appeal of one of the appellants but
dismissed that of the appellant. Hence this appeal.
The High court convicted the appellant for
manslaughter and rape and sentenced him to 10
and 8 years imprisonment respectively. The
court of appeal dismissed the appeal hence this
further appeal against conviction and sentence.
The brief background is that the appellant had
been found with a nearly dead deceased whom
it was alleged that he had raped and killed. At
trial and at appeal, it was believed that the
death was caused by the appellant in conflict of
the medical evidence apparently because it was
not based on reasoning.
This was an appeal against the decision of the Court of
Appeal. That court dismissed an appeal by the appellant who
had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death by
Musoke-Kibuuka, J, of the High Court.
Court considered whether the defence of self defence was
available to the appellant.
Court ruled that the fact that the deceased was so menacingly
daring after sending a very serious death threat he went to
appellant's home, insulted him in his own home in the
presence of his own son must have put the appellant on
defense. Court was of the opinion that the appellant, like any
other person of his status, was forced to react the way he did.
The evidence of provocation was not excluded. Even if the
evidence of provocation was not so strong as to amount in law
to a defence for the appellant as required by the standard set
by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal, in our opinion, the
appellant was entitled to use force to defend both himself and
Court accordingly found that both the trial judge and the
Court of Appeal erred when they held that neither defence
was available to the appellant. Self-defence was established.
The appellant was thus aquited.
This was an appeal from judgment of the Court of Appeal, against conviction for murder on two counts and sentence of death on each count. The appellant contended that the court of appeal erred when it confirmed the decision of the High Court with regards to the issue of identification, and the degree of proof that was required.