HC: Anti corruption Division (Uganda)

The Anti-corruption Division of the High court was established in July 2008 by the Judiciary as a specialized Division to adjudicate corruption and corruption related cases. The Division commenced hearing cases in December 2008.

The Establishment of the ACD was a deliberate step by the Judiciary, in response to demands by Government and other institutions engaged in fighting corruption, to take drastic action against the corrupt by strengthening the adjudicatory mechanism for fighting corruption.

The Principal Judge administratively set up the ACD, as a specialized Division of the High Court to adjudicate corruption cases. The Chief Justice would like to formally establish the ACD through a Practice Direction.

Physical address

Plot 8 Mabua Road, Kololo, Kampala- Uganda.

Visit website

https://judiciary.go.ug/data/smenu/19/Anti-Corruption%20Division.html

10 judgments

Advanced search

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

10 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
December 2013
Uganda v Remo (Criminal Session 14 of 2013) [2013] UGHCACD 2 (20 December 2013) Internal ‘‘borrowing’’ of public funds without statutory authority constitutes theft even if repayment was promised. Embezzlement of public funds; Penal Code s.254(1) & (2)(e) — intent to repay does not negate theft; unlawful internal ‘‘borrowing’’ of public monies; authorization for advances requires statutory procedure (Accountant General/CAO); conviction and 18‑month sentence with recovered funds returned.	20 December 2013
November 2013
Uganda v Kyasimire & Anor (Criminal Session 63 of 2013) [2013] UGHCACD 3 (11 November 2013) Two health workers convicted of embezzling government medical supplies; fines (or imprisonment in default) and return/destruction orders imposed. * Criminal law – Embezzlement – possession and recovery of government‑labelled medical supplies – sufficiency of evidence to prove intent to permanently deprive owner. * Evidence – weight of quantity and labels of recovered goods; minor contradictions in witness testimony immaterial where recovery is uncontested. * Property – distinction between health unit stores and separate staff quarters relevant to lawful possession.	11 November 2013
August 2013
Uganda v Ndyanabo (HCT-00-AC-SC 84 of 2013) [2013] UGHCACD 4 (15 August 2013) Accused convicted for offering gratification to a public officer to prevent charging; fined UGX 600,000 and forfeiture ordered. * Anti‑corruption — offering/granting gratification to a public officer to desist from preferring charges; elements: offer, public officer, quid pro quo. * Evidence — corroboration by multiple police witnesses; minor contradictions not fatal. * Burden and standard — prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. * Sentence — fine with default imprisonment; forfeiture of bribe.	15 August 2013
July 2013
Luyimbazi & 2 Ors v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN 21 of 2012) [2013] UGHCACD 11 (1 July 2013) Whether payments for police guard services constituted government revenue and supported embezzlement convictions. Police Act s.71 – payments for special duty/guard services – constituting government revenue; Embezzlement and abuse of office – receipt, control and failure to account for public funds; Criminal procedure – necessity of investigating officer’s testimony; Functus officio – power to admit further evidence; Interpretation Act – effect of repeal on pending or prior offences; Sentencing discretion and orders for repayment.	1 July 2013
June 2013
Uganda v Kazinda (HCT- 00- SC 138 of 2012) [2013] UGHCACD 10 (19 June 2013) Constructive possession and forensic handwriting evidence established forgery, abuse of office and unlawful possession, resulting in conviction and concurrent prison terms. Criminal law – search and seizure – admissibility of handwriting expert reports – forensic comparison; Forgery – simulation of signatures on security papers and cash withdrawal forms; Constructive possession – dominion, control and circumstantial proof; Abuse of office – breach of trust by public officer; Unlawful possession of government stores – failure to account.	19 June 2013
Uganda v Bagarukayo (HCT-00-AC-CN 9 of 2013) [2013] UGHCACD 8 (12 June 2013) Appellate court found sufficient corroborated evidence linking the respondent to corruption in payroll transactions and substituted convictions. Corruption—receipt of gratification by public official—payroll manipulation—accomplice witness corroboration—bank records and payroll documents as corroborative evidence—appeal court substituting convictions.	12 June 2013
May 2013
Uganda v Nandaula (HCT-00-AC-SC 25 of 2012) [2013] UGHCACD 1 (14 May 2013) Prosecution failed to prove solicitation or receipt of gratification beyond reasonable doubt; appeal dismissed. Criminal law — Corruption offences — solicitation and receipt of gratification — sufficiency and corroboration of evidence; Circumstantial evidence — requirement to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence; Witness credibility — motive and reliability; Appellate review — independent scrutiny but benefit of doubt to accused.	14 May 2013
April 2013
Uganda v Keba Isaac (HCT-00-AC-SC 22 of 2012) [2013] UGHCACD 7 (25 April 2013) Branch accountant convicted of embezzlement and uttering false bank statements; acquitted of forgery; imprisoned and ordered to repay funds. * Embezzlement by employee – breach of trust, missing receipts and delayed bankings as circumstantial proof of theft * Forgery – distinction between making a false document and proving authorship * Uttering false documents – liability where accused knowingly transmits forged bank statements to employer * Circumstantial evidence – must be incompatible with innocence and exclude reasonable alternative hypotheses * Sentence – custodial term and restitution appropriate for serious breach of fiduciary duty	25 April 2013
Uganda v Nsubuga & 3 Ors (HCT-00-AC-SC 84 of 2012) [2013] UGHCACD 12 (3 April 2013) Prosecution proved unauthorized access, electronic fraud and use of spyware by two accused; two others acquitted; duty‑evasion not proved. Computer misuse – warrantless seizure and forensic imaging – exigent circumstances exception to statutory warrant requirement; Electronic evidence – forensic imaging (EnCase) admissibility and chain of custody; Cyber offences – unauthorized use/interception, electronic fraud, unauthorized access/modification, possession/procurement of spyware; Customs law – unauthorized access to customs computerized system; Proof of loss and knowledge – requirements for fraudulent evasion of duty; Duplicity – single transaction doctrine; Indictment – DPP’s authorised signatory and post‑plea amendment.	3 April 2013
March 2013
Mukula v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN 1 of 2013) [2013] UGHCACD 6 (13 March 2013) Conviction for embezzlement quashed due to mis‑evaluation of evidence and insufficient proof of receipt and misappropriation. Criminal law – Embezzlement – elements and burden of proof; Misdescription in charge ("employee" v "government officer") – prejudice test; Prior inconsistent statement – use as impeachment not substantive evidence; Proper evaluation of documentary evidence and witness testimony; Calling accused to account – procedural fairness and no case to answer; Appeal allowed for insufficient evidence.	13 March 2013