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
5 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
5 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
November 2014
Byaruhanga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2014) [2014] UGHCACD 12 (10 November 2014)
The appellant’s embezzlement conviction and refund order affirmed; unauthorized employee payment to a third party does not negate embezzlement.
* Criminal law – Embezzlement – Employee and signatory to employer’s bank account withdraws funds and pays a third party without authorization – unauthorized payment constitutes embezzlement. * Evidence – Proof of ownership/entitlement – bank account signatories as prima facie owners; minor typographical discrepancies not fatal where no prejudice shown. * Employment – oral employment sufficient to establish employee status for embezzlement charge. * Sentencing – sentencing discretion; refund order obligatory on conviction.
 10 November 2014
Kazibwe v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN 10 of 2014) [2014] UGHCACD 18 (10 November 2014)
Appeal against embezzlement and financial-loss convictions dismissed; evidence sufficient and sentence upheld.
Criminal appeal – embezzlement and causing financial loss – sufficiency of evidence – late tendering of exhibits – right to legal representation in magistrates' courts – cross-examination – sentence proportionality.
 10 November 2014
Loluk v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN 12 of 2014) [2014] UGHCACD 17 (10 November 2014)
Town clerk lacked authority and improperly awarded public contracts; convictions for abuse of office and corruption upheld.
Criminal law – Abuse of office and corruption – Award of public contracts to different entity than approved; Procurement law – authority to communicate tender awards under Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006; Appellate review – evaluation of evidence and upholding trial court findings.
 10 November 2014
Masereka v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN 9 of 2014) [2014] UGHCACD 16 (10 November 2014)
Conviction for embezzlement quashed for failure to prove employment, misappropriation and lack of forensic linkage.
* Criminal law – Embezzlement – elements: employment, misappropriation, access by virtue of employment – requirement proof beyond reasonable doubt. * Evidence – burden of proof on prosecution – need for documentary linkage and forensic examination (handwriting/forensics) to tie exhibits to accused. * Evidence – hearsay and unreliable testimony cannot replace direct proof of employment or culpability. * Investigation – necessity of cautioned statements, forensic audit, witness statements and scene inquiries. * Appeal – appellate review of trial evidence where conviction is unsafe due to evidential deficiencies.
 10 November 2014
Uganda v Lugya & Anor (HCT-00-AC-SC 89 of 2012) [2014] UGHCACD 14 (3 November 2014)
An operations manager’s unauthorized permission enabling private use of state broadcasting facilities constituted abuse of office and conspiracy.
* Anti‑corruption law – Abuse of office – unauthorized authorization of private use of state broadcasting facilities – requirement of tenancy/contract and managing‑director approval. * Evidence – admissibility and corroboration of co‑accused confession (charge and caution statement) in establishing conspiracy. * Criminal law – Conspiracy to defraud – acts and mutual understanding evidencing agreement. * Property offences – Fraudulent appropriation of electric power by using metered electricity without payment. * Proof of loss – necessity of quantifying financial prejudice when charging for causing financial loss.
 3 November 2014