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
3 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
3 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
May 2014
Uganda v Tibiwa (HCT-00-SC 90 of 2013) [2014] UGHCACD 4 (20 May 2014)
Prosecution failed to prove abuse of office, embezzlement or false accounting; accused acquitted on all counts.
* Criminal law – Abuse of office – elements: employment in public body; arbitrary act; abuse of authority; prejudice to employer – failure to prove initiation, arbitrariness or prejudice. * Criminal law – Embezzlement – requirement of theft and stewardship/control of funds – absence of evidence of theft or control. * Criminal law – False/Fraudulent Accounting – officer charged with receipt/custody must be shown and a false return proved; misplacement of charge under wrong section and insufficiency of proof. * Procedure – searches by police must follow statutory (Police Act, Magistrates Courts Act) and constitutional safeguards.
 20 May 2014
Kasagga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2013) [2014] UGHCACD 6 (14 May 2014)
Appellant’s convictions for unlicensed deposit‑taking and embezzlement affirmed; compensation upheld and sentence reduced to three years.
* Financial Institutions Act – deposit‑taking – definition of "deposit" includes sums repayable with or without interest – licence required to transact deposit‑taking business. * Penal Code – embezzlement – conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence where inculpatory facts exclude innocence. * Burden of proof – prosecution bears burden beyond reasonable doubt; trial court’s critique of accused’s explanation does not necessarily shift burden. * Compensation – section 270 Penal Code mandates compensation on conviction and allows apportionment of liability. * Sentencing – remand credit and relative culpability between co‑accused inform appropriate reduction of custodial term.
 14 May 2014
Balikowa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2013) [2014] UGHCACD 2 (7 May 2014)
Court upheld convictions for unlicensed deposit-taking and embezzlement, affirmed compensation, disqualification, and a seven-year sentence.
* Financial Institutions Act s.4 – prohibition on transacting deposit-taking business without licence; operators and company officers liable. * Penal Code s.268 – embezzlement by company officer who accesses funds by virtue of office. * Proof – prosecution must prove elements beyond reasonable doubt; bank and witness evidence plus verification report may establish tracing and loss. * Compensation – court may order convicted persons to reimburse verified depositor losses. * Sentencing – remand credit, aggravating (large loss, repeat offending) and mitigating factors considered.
 7 May 2014