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
August 2014
Mugizi v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN 1 of 2014) [2014] UGHCACD 10 (18 August 2014)
Whether solicitation and receipt under s.2(a) are distinct and whether the prosecution proved corruption beyond reasonable doubt.
* Anti‑Corruption Act s.2(a) – solicitation and acceptance/receiving are alternative, distinct acts. * Evidence – corroboration of trap operations and witness testimony can prove receipt. * Contradictions – minor inconsistencies and small exhibit errors not necessarily fatal. * Failure to call witness or tender fingerprint report not always fatal; prosecution’s discretion in adducing evidence. * Appellate re‑appreciation – duty to reassess credibility where necessary.
 18 August 2014
Ocira & 2 Ors v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN 2 of 2014) [2014] UGHCACD 312 (8 August 2014)
Misjoinder of separate offences in one charge violated right to fair hearing; convictions quashed and retrial ordered.
* Criminal procedure – Joinder of accused and counts – Misjoinder where offences are separate in time, place and nature – s.87 Magistrates Courts Act. * Constitutional law – Right to fair hearing – Defective charge sheet and misjoinder vitiating trial (Article 44(c)). * Remedy – Convictions quashed and retrial ordered where trial defective for misjoinder. * Appellate duty – First appellate court must re-hear and make its own decision on the evidence and law.
 8 August 2014
Uganda v Wandera (HCT-00-AC-SC 12 of 2014) [2014] UGHCACD 8 (8 August 2014)
Prosecution failed to prove illicit enrichment: past income omitted and valuation report lacked intelligible methodology, accused acquitted.
* Criminal law — Illicit enrichment — Proof requires precise financial profiling and valuation to show assets disproportionate to current and past known income (s.31). * Evidence — Expert valuation evidence must provide intelligible criteria and methodology, not bare ipse dixit. * Procedure — No‑case‑to‑answer proper where prosecution fails to prove essential ingredients; accused acquitted under s.73(1) Trial on Indictment Act.
 8 August 2014