Steven Kalali (Halsbury)

After the Constitutional Court declares Section 115 of the Penal Code Act unconstitutional, what next for the convicts and other embattled people currently answering the charges? I engaged the Petitioner, Mr. @KalaliSteven and this is what he has to say. . . #TheCourtStoryteller #FollowUs

STRANGE BUT TRUE: ⚖️ Failure to provide a convict with a written judgment can lead to their release! Supreme Court upholds Court of Appeal's decision although, underscores the latter's procedural mistakes. But first, how did the High Court fail to avail a written judgment that had already been read to the convict? How did the judgment get lost? The Supreme Court has upheld a Court of Appeal decision that set free a man convicted of murder by the High Court in Luwero, after the convict was read the judgment but was not provided with a physical copy to facilitate his appeal. On April 3, 2009, in Nakaseke, Kaye Samuel, together with others, allegedly attacked Teopista Nakanyike in her garden. They severely assaulted her with sticks and a blunt object, causing fatal injuries. She later collapsed and died. Kaye was arrested, prosecuted and convicted of murder by the High Court in Luwero, presided over by Justice Kabiito, who sentenced him to 30 years' imprisonment. However, although the judgment was read to him, he was not provided with a written copy. He subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Egonda-Ntende, Catherine Bamugemereire and Christopher Madrama, quashed the sentence on the ground of High Court's miscarriage of Justice. "That the learned Justices of Appeal erred in law when they discharged the respondent only on the basis of a missing judgment thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice." appealed the State The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) challenged that decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a corum of 5 Justices, Prof. Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Percy Night Tuhaise, Mike J. Chibita, Elizabeth Musoke and Monica Mugyenyi, upheld the Court of Appeal's decision, leaving Kaye's discharge intact. Interestingly, while affirming the outcome, the Supreme Court faulted the Court of Appeal for failing to remit the case file to the High Court for the judgment to be written. Can a criminal conviction stand when the convict was read the judgment but was not availed a written copy necessary to pursue an appeal? Where is now justice for the late Teopista? The case underscores the importance of proper judicial record-keeping and compliance with procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings. #TheCourtStoryteller #FollowUs

COURT UPDATE: ⚖️ Industrial Court Orders Kyambogo University to Pay Former Cook Shs. 8.9M in Salary Arrears, Shs. 10M in Damages and Half Costs after Unfair Termination. The Industrial Court has ordered @kyambogou to pay Ms. Magdalene Atono two months’ salary in lieu of notice following her unlawful termination. The decision follows the Court’s finding that Atono was unfairly discriminated against and unlawfully excluded from confirmation in employment and terminated, despite possessing the requisite qualifications. Atono joined the institution on May 12, 2000, as support staff at the then Uganda Polytechnic Kyambogo (UPK), earning a monthly salary of Shs. 40,000. She subsequently upgraded her qualifications, obtaining a certificate in Hotel Management and Institutional Catering in 2007. Following the institution’s transition into Kyambogo University, she was recruited as a cook on a temporary contract. In 2009, the University terminated her contract. In a judgment delivered by Hon. Justice Linda Lillian Tumusiime Mugisha, alongside panelists Hon. Harriet Mugambwa, Hon. Fidel Ebyau and Hon. Francis Xavier Mubuuke, the Court found that Atono had been unfairly discriminated against when the University excluded her from confirmation while confirming her colleagues. The Court held that the University’s actions violated the principles of equality and non-discrimination under Article 21 of the Constitution and contravened Section 5(4) of the Employment Act. “The Claimant’s unjustified distinction, by placing her under a non-existent categorization as a group employee and salary scale M20, and her exclusion from confirmation, despite her possessing the inherent requirements for confirmation to the Kitchen Attendant position by March 2009, when her colleagues were confirmed, amounted to unfair discrimination that is contrary to section 5(4) of the Employment Act (supra) and is therefore unlawful,” stated the judgment #TheCourtStoryteller #FollowUs Courtesy 📸

COURT UPDATE: Judgment | Deporting a Juvenile must be after consideration of various factors | Magistrate Court Decision Quashed. The High Court has quashed a sentence by a Family Division Magistrate’s Court ordering the removal of Selam Kasete, a female Eritrean 🇪🇷 juvenile, from Uganda to her country of origin. The juvenile had pleaded guilty before the lower court, was sentenced but subsequently appealed the decision. In its ruling, the High Court, presided over by Justice Paul Gadenya, emphasised that any decision to remove a juvenile from a country must carefully assess their welfare and best interests, in accordance with Section 3 of the Children Act, Article 3(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Article 4(1) of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. The Court identified procedural defects in the plea-taking process and ordered a retrial, emphasising that the proceedings must comply with the law without attempting to cure or accommodate prosecutorial shortcomings in the previous trial. Justice Gadenya further observed that any decision to return a juvenile to their country of origin must be informed by reliable information concerning their age, identity, family circumstances, reception arrangements and protection needs. Such an assessment should ordinarily be supported by a report from a probation and social welfare officer. Among the key orders issued by the Court: Fresh trial: The juvenile is to be retried before a different Magistrate’s Court, rather than the court that handled the previous proceedings. Competent interpretation: The new proceedings must provide competent and impartial interpreters to facilitate Selam Kasete’s understanding and participation. Consular rights: Kasete must be informed, through an interpreter, of her consular rights, and any request for consular notification must be promptly communicated to the competent authorities. The ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness, child protection and the principle of the best interests of the child when courts handle cases involving juveniles, particularly foreign nationals facing possible removal from Uganda. #TheCourtStoryteller #FollowUs

COURT UPDATE: Voter bribery | Fundraisings & Donations During Campaign Periods What does the law say about fundraising and donations during election campaigns? Section 87(7) of the Parliamentary Elections Act prohibits a candidate or their agent from conducting fundraising or giving donations during the campaign period. The law provides: “A candidate or an agent of a candidate shall not carry on fundraising or giving of donations during the period of campaigning.” However, the court in Oguzu Lee Denis v Uhuru Nelson and Another (Election Petition No. 6 of 2026), draws a distinction between prohibited campaign-period fundraising and a parliamentary aspirant giving a reward or refreshment to a choir, priest or congregation while addressing a gathering as a guest. Such an act, in the circumstances considered by the court, does not automatically amount to an electoral offence or establish voter bribery. The court further observes that testimony from a person who allegedly received a bribe does not, on its own, necessarily constitute cogent evidence sufficient to overturn an election. The circumstances surrounding the alleged bribery, the credibility of the witness and the overall evidence presented must be considered. The takeaway: Allegations of voter bribery must be proved by credible evidence, and not merely by the assertion that a candidate made a donation or that a beneficiary later testified to receiving it. #TheCourtStoryteller

COURT UPDATE: Who Is Eligible to File an Electoral Petition? Hon. Kwizera’s Bukimbiri County Victory Upheld | Petition Dismissed Over Petitioner’s Citizenship Question. The High Court has upheld Hon. Kwizera Eddie Wa-Gahungu’s victory in the January 15, 2026 Parliamentary elections for Bukimbiri County after finding that the petitioner, Owebeyi James, lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to challenge the election. In a judgment delivered by Justice Farouq Lubega, the Court agreed with arguments advanced by Hon. Kwizera’s legal team and the Electoral Commission that Owebeyi had not established that he was a Ugandan citizen, a key issue in determining his eligibility to file the petition. "The court cannot substitute procedural requirements with leniency simply because the petitioner failed to comply with established evidential standards," says Justice Lubega. Owebeyi had sought to overturn Kwizera’s victory after his name was reportedly removed from the electoral register. “It is undisputed that a person must be a Ugandan citizen to be eligible to become a Member of Parliament. In this case, the petitioner’s nomination documents do not show that he is a Ugandan citizen,” the Court observed. According to the Court, affidavits presented in the proceedings indicated that Owebeyi’s @NIRA_Ug documents reflected "presumed citizenship", a status the Court linked to children below five years under Article 11(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner did not produce evidence sufficient to rebut the concerns raised about his citizenship status. Consequently, the Court found that Owebeyi lacked locus standi to institute the electoral petition and dismissed it, with each party ordered to bear its own costs. #TheCourtStoryTeller #FollowUs @nilepostnews