This study examined the role of judicial precedent in the development of constitutional law in Uganda through a case study of 120 decisions of the Constitutional Court of Uganda delivered between 2005 and 2024. A quantitative content analysis design, supported by doctrinal analysis, was adopted. Each decision was coded for the number of precedents cited, the number of foreign authorities relied upon, the length of the judgment, the presence of a dissent, the nature of the petition and the outcome. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, multiple linear regression and binary logistic regression, supported by diagnostic tests. The decisions cited a mean of 9.63 precedents and were subsequently cited a mean of 12.01 times. Precedent use correlated strongly with later influence (r = .655, p < .001), and the linear model explained 58.6 percent of the variance in subsequent citations. In the logistic model, each additional precedent cited raised the odds of a petition being allowed by 17.7 percent, while dissent reduced the odds of success, although not significantly. The diagnostic tests indicated that the regression assumptions were satisfied. It was concluded that judicial precedent operated as a significant mechanism through which the Court built, stabilised and projected constitutional doctrine, although its effect on outcomes was moderate. The study recommended structured digests of constitutional decisions, fuller reasoning on departures from precedent and sustained judicial training.