Why we publish this
Any firm evaluating legal AI is told, correctly, to trust no vendor’s claims about what it holds. The usual answer to the question is a marketing phrase — an ever-growing corpus, comprehensive coverage, grounded in Ugandan law — which cannot be checked and therefore should not be believed.
So here is the position instead, with its gaps. If you find that we have overstated something on this page, that is a reason not to buy from us, and we would rather you found it here than in a matter.
Legislation
| Source | What we hold | As at |
|---|---|---|
| Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 | Complete, as amended | Revised edition to 31 December 2023 |
| Principal Laws of Uganda, 7th Revised Edition | 351 Acts across all 14 volumes, held in full text | Revised edition to 31 December 2023 |
| Acts passed since the 7th Revised Edition | Not yet held as a complete set | — |
| Statutory instruments and subsidiary legislation | Not held as a separate searchable collection | — |
Legislation is held as full text, not as summaries. When the assistant relies on a provision it quotes that provision and links to it, so you read the section rather than the model’s recollection of it.
The limit worth knowing: our statute holdings follow the 7th Revised Edition, which is revised to 31 December 2023. An Act passed or amended after that date may not be in the corpus. Check currency on anything recent.
Case law
Judgments are held as the text of the judgment itself, so an authority can be quoted verbatim and a citation opens at the paragraph relied on. Coverage differs by court, and the position as at 24 August 2026 is:
| Court | Coverage | Position as at |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Uganda | Complete | 24 August 2026 |
| High Court of Uganda | Substantially complete | 24 August 2026 |
| Court of Appeal of Uganda | Partial, expanding | 24 August 2026 |
| Constitutional Court of Uganda | Not yet ingested | — |
- Complete — we hold the judgments published for that court, and we are not aware of a systematic gap.
- Substantially complete — the great majority is held; some judgments, typically older or poorly scanned ones, are missing.
- Partial, expanding — a meaningful proportion is held and ingestion is continuing. Do not assume an authority from this court is present.
- Not yet ingested — we hold nothing from this court. Constitutional Court authority will not be found by searching PractoCore today.
What happens when we do not have it
A gap in a corpus is dangerous only if the system covers for it. The assistant answers from what it retrieved and shows you the source; where it has nothing on point it is built to say so rather than to produce a plausible citation.
That is a design commitment, not a guarantee about every possible answer. Language models can still be wrong. The check that actually protects you is the one you can perform yourself: open the citation and read the provision or the paragraph. Every citation the assistant produces is clickable for that reason.
How the corpus is built
Legislation comes from the published revised edition. Judgments come from the public court record as published, retrieved and processed into searchable full text; scanned judgments are put through optical character recognition and flagged for review where the text quality is poor, so a bad scan becomes a known gap rather than a silent corruption.
Search runs over the text of the sources themselves rather than over a summary of them, and results are returned with the citation attached. We do not paraphrase an authority into the index and then cite the paraphrase.
When this page changes
We update this page when the position changes — when a court is ingested, when a gap closes, or when we discover one we had not recorded. The date at the top is the date the position was last checked, not the date the wording was last edited.
If you need coverage of a particular court, period or subject before you can commit, tell us at contact@practocore.com and we will tell you where it stands and whether we can close it.
Check this yourself
Do not take this page on trust either. Bring questions from matters you have already run, where you know the answer and the authority, and see what comes back. We have written down how we think that test should be run — including where we expect to fail it.
Questions about this document?
Write to contact@practocore.com, or see the contact page. Test us against it, and see the due diligence page for the rest of what a procurement review will ask.