Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

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

1 judgment

Advanced search

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

1 judgment

Citation	Judgment date
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

Citation

Judgment date

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