enenlegalworld

Category: The Law of evidence

  • BANG! MILITARY COURTS FOR CIVILIANS ARE DEAD—THE SUPREME COURT JUST DROPPED THE HAMMER, AND THE RADICAL NEW BAR LIT THE FUNERAL PYRE!

    BANG! MILITARY COURTS FOR CIVILIANS ARE DEAD—THE SUPREME COURT JUST DROPPED THE HAMMER, AND THE RADICAL NEW BAR LIT THE FUNERAL PYRE!

    The Supreme Court has spoken. The revolution has won. The military courts are finished. It took 25 years of legal battles, endless delays, and the relentless fire of Uganda’s most radical legal minds, but justice has finally arrived. And when it came, it wasn’t subtle. It came with the full force of the Constitution, a gavel so loud it could shake the foundations of every military courtroom still pretending to be a temple of justice.

    This is not just a legal victory; it is a demolition job on a long-standing abuse of power. It is the final nail in the coffin for a system that has for decades terrorized civilians, dragging them before military tribunals as if they were rogue soldiers, silencing dissent under the guise of national security. And the Supreme Court? Oh, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment with flair, with humor, and with the kind of clarity that leaves no room for debate.

    Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo, ever the master of courtroom theatre, laid it all bare in ways that had the entire legal fraternity both laughing and nodding in agreement. Imagine a Uganda where he, a civilian, is picked to lead a military brigade to guard the war-torn eastern border with the DRC. Imagine him, clad in combat gear, barking orders to soldiers while probably asking them which way to point a gun. Or worse—picture him in a hospital theatre, standing over an unconscious patient, scalpel in hand, completely clueless about whether he’s holding a kidney or a liver. Madness, right? Exactly. That, he said, is the absurdity of putting untrained military officers in charge of dispensing justice.

    This was the point where even the most rigid courtroom observer had to chuckle. But beneath the humor was a devastating truth: military courts are tribunals run by people without the first clue about judicial procedure, yet they have spent years presiding over cases, handing down life sentences and convictions like they were distributing rations at a military mess. The Chief Justice didn’t mince his words. The Constitution was clear, and so was the Court—military justice is for military personnel, period. Civilians have no business being tried there.

    And yet, as the judgment was delivered, there was another remarkable moment. Counsel Caleb Alaka, one of Uganda’s legal firebrands, stood up and did something few saw coming—he apologized. On behalf of the Uganda Law Society, he expressed regret for the extreme activism, the relentless pressure, the public letters, the weekly legal firebombs the Radical New Bar had been hurling at the Supreme Court, demanding action. The judges listened, some perhaps amused, others with the quiet satisfaction of warriors who had just emerged victorious in a long and bloody intellectual battle.

    The apology was sincere, but let’s be honest—this war was necessary. The Radical New Bar, under the fearless and uncompromising leadership of Isaac K. Ssemakadde, fought like hell to make this ruling happen. The legal establishment had long grown too comfortable, too resigned to waiting indefinitely for judgments while civilians continued to be dragged before military tribunals. The RNB was having none of it. Weekly press conferences, legal activism so sharp it cut through the silence, direct challenges to judicial inertia—this was lawfare at its finest. And in the end, the pressure worked.

    The judgment is now out, and the message is clear: no more military courts for civilians. No more kangaroo justice. No more legal intimidation. If the army wants to try someone, that person better be wearing a uniform. Otherwise, they belong in the courts of law established by the Constitution. And for those still clinging to the old ways, still hoping that military justice can be used as a tool of fear and suppression? Pack up your case files. Your era is over.

    For the Uganda People’s Defence Forces, the ruling leaves no room for negotiation. Civilians currently facing trial in military courts must be released. Every ongoing case must be dropped. Any attempt to defy this ruling will not just be illegal—it will be suicidal. The ULS and the RNB are watching. The Supreme Court is watching. And the Ugandan people, tired of impunity, will not tolerate another second of this nonsense.

    Parliament? Time to clean house. The UPDF Act needs to be amended—immediately. Those loopholes that allowed military courts to overstep their jurisdiction must be sealed permanently. No more ambiguity, no more exploitation of civilians through legal gymnastics. This ruling has set the standard, now it’s up to lawmakers to ensure the law reflects it. And the Executive? The President, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions—they need to act. Not tomorrow, not next week. Now.

    For those who still think this is just another ruling, another judgment to be ignored or manipulated—think again. This is the beginning of a new era. The days when military courts were used as tools of intimidation are gone. The days when civilians had to fear being hauled before unqualified military judges who don’t know the difference between fair trial rights and a parade drill are gone. This is what victory looks like.

    Uganda’s legal profession will never be the same. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its place in history. The Radical New Bar has cemented its reputation as the most effective force for legal accountability in modern Uganda. And the Constitution? It has won. The rule of law has won. Justice has won.

    The revolution is here, and it has no brakes.

    A copy of the Judgment can be found here

    AG v Hon Micheal Kabaziguruka SC Const Appeal N_250131_153316Download

    The statement of the Uganda Law Society welcoming the Judgment can be found here

    supreme court statementDownload

    Enen Ambrose is a Rule of Law enthusiast and a supporter of the firebrand president of the Uganda Law Society, Isaac K Ssemakade.

    Disclaimer: This write up is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as a substitute for professional legal advice. Readers are advised to seek the services of a qualified attorney in their area of Jurisdiction for situation specific legal advice and course of action.

    Do you have a story in your community that sheds light on the Rule of Law discourse that you want us to discuss about? Or do you have valuable constructive feedback for us?

    Please reach out to us on, ambrosenen@gmail.com or +256789856805

  • The Principled Approach to Hearsay Evidence: A Key to Justice in Customary Land Disputes

    The Principled Approach to Hearsay Evidence: A Key to Justice in Customary Land Disputes

    Brief introduction.

    In legal disputes involving customary land, evidence rules can create challenges for communities reliant on oral traditions. While courts traditionally exclude hearsay evidence due to reliability concerns, the principled approach to hearsay evidence accommodates oral histories when they meet specific criteria. This approach is invaluable in ensuring justice, particularly in disputes where written documentation is absent.

    A recent case in Uganda, Osele Yusuf & Others v. Oruni Odwar John & Others, highlights the importance of this approach. The High Court of Uganda at Soroti upheld a trial court decision favoring the respondents, descendants of Oruni Yona, in a land dispute. The case provides an excellent example of how the principled approach can validate oral testimony while balancing the need for credible evidence.

    Brief Facts of the Case

    The dispute centered on 2¼ square miles of land in Ngariam village. The respondents claimed the land as a customary inheritance from their late father, Oruni Yona, who had acquired it during the colonial era. They alleged that Yona was gifted the land by local families and had expanded it through clearing and cultivation.

    The appellants, descendants of a local chief, argued that Yona had only occupied a small plot as a temporary settler. They began asserting ownership in 2014 by inviting the Area Land Committee to demarcate the land, which the respondents opposed. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, citing oral evidence corroborated by physical markers such as graves, homesteads, and cultivated fields.

    The Principled Approach to Hearsay evidence.

    The appellate judge affirmed the trial court’s reliance on oral evidence, applying the principled approach to hearsay. This framework allows hearsay evidence if it satisfies two criteria:

    1. Necessity: The evidence must be essential because the original source is unavailable. In this case, Yona was deceased, and oral testimony was the only way to trace the history of the land.


    2. Reliability: The evidence must be trustworthy, based on consistency with other facts, the reputation of the source, and the absence of bias. The court found Yona’s accounts credible as they predated the dispute and aligned with physical evidence observed during the locus visit.



    Integration of Oral History.

    The court’s acceptance of oral evidence reflects lessons from Canadian jurisprudence, particularly in indigenous land claims. In Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997), the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that oral histories represent vital evidence in communities without written records. Uganda’s adoption of this approach recognizes the cultural realities of customary practices.

    Key Observations

    During a locus visit, the court confirmed:

    Graves of Yona’s family members, dating back decades.

    Remains of homesteads and cultivated fields, demonstrating long-term possession.

    Contradictions in the appellants’ claims, such as inconsistencies about the size and location of the plot allegedly occupied by Yona.


    These findings supported the trial court’s conclusion that the respondents’ oral testimony was credible and reliable. The appellants’ failure to provide consistent evidence weakened their claims.

    A Culturally Sensitive Framework

    The principled approach bridges the gap between strict legal rules and cultural realities. By evaluating oral testimony critically yet fairly, courts can ensure that justice accommodates diverse traditions. In customary land disputes, this approach protects claimants from procedural disadvantages while upholding the integrity of legal proceedings.

    Conclusion

    The Osele Yusuf case underscores the value of the principled approach in addressing customary land disputes. By allowing hearsay evidence when it is necessary and reliable, courts ensure that justice is inclusive and equitable. This approach not only validates oral traditions but also sets a precedent for resolving disputes in culturally informed and historically sensitive ways.

    The Appellants were represented by Counsel Mugoda Denis of Mugoda-Nangulu & Co. Advocates whereas the Respondents were represented by Enen Ambrose of M/S Okurut-Magara Associated Advocates.

    The full Judgment in the case can be accessed from here:

    Osele vs Oruni JudgmentDownload

    DISCLAIMER: This blog post is for educational and awareness purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for professional Legal advice covering specific legal situations. The author accepts absolutely no responsibility for any injuries, legal or otherwise that arises from using the information contained here in. Readers of the blog post are strictly advised to seek professional Legal advice from a qualified Attorney in their areas of Jurisdiction to obtain situation specific advice covering their legal problems.

    About the author.

    Enen Ambrose is an Advocate of the Courts of Judicature and currently practicing with M/S Okurut-Magara Associated Advocates.

    Contact us.

    Email: ambrosenen@gmail.com

    Asiku Road, Adjumani Town Council, Adjumani District

    +256789856805