|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2015 |
|
|
Failure to cross-examine permits acceptance of unchallenged prosecution evidence; conviction for solicitation and receipt of gratification upheld.
* Criminal law – Corruption offences – Soliciting and receiving a gratification – Proof by conduct and marked money; * Evidence – Failure to cross-examine – Unchallenged testimony may be accepted unless inherently incredible; * Appeals – First appellate court re-evaluating credibility on the record without hearing witnesses.
|
7 December 2015 |
| November 2015 |
|
|
Accused acquitted on all counts for failure of prosecution to prove abuse, forgery and uttering beyond reasonable doubt.
Anti‑corruption – Abuse of office: elements include employment, arbitrary act, abuse of authority, and prejudice to employer; requirement to prove notice of suspension. Criminal law – Forgery: elements are false document, intent to deceive, and identity of author; where only circumstantial evidence exists it must exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence (Simon Musoke principle). Criminal law – Uttering false documents: requires knowledge of falsity and intent to deceive. Evidentiary law – sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and need for direct evidence to identify perpetrator.
|
10 November 2015 |
|
Two public officers convicted for approving improperly verified VAT refunds causing Shs 6.45 billion loss; third accused acquitted.
* Anti‑corruption law – Abuse of office – Approvals of VAT refunds without adequate verification; failure to consult Customs/ASYCUDA and other external sources. * Causing financial loss – negligence/due diligence of public officers leading to loss of public funds. * False claims – endorsement/approval of refund claims false in material particulars. * Evidence – sufficiency to convict principal officers but not a peripheral team member.
|
5 November 2015 |
| October 2015 |
|
|
Appellants acquitted of conspiracy for lack of proof; second appellant’s personation conviction upheld and sentence reduced to 10 months.
* Criminal law – Conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor – requirement of proof of agreement; circumstantial evidence must exclude innocence. * Evidence – uncorroborated/uncertain telephone records insufficient to link an accused without proof of participation. * Criminal law – Personation of public officer – attendance at arranged meeting and phone/transfer evidence may sustain conviction. * Sentencing – concurrent/aggregate sentence reconsidered where convictions partly quashed.
|
6 October 2015 |
| September 2015 |
|
|
Failure to prove causation or knowledge under section 20(1) of the Anti‑Corruption Act resulted in acquittal of the accused.
Criminal law – Cause of financial loss under s.20(1) Anti‑Corruption Act; elements: employment, loss, causation, knowledge; bank verification procedures; supervisor's obligation to physically view customer; sufficiency of evidence (CCTV and account opening records).
|
25 September 2015 |
|
Acquittal where prosecution failed to prove embezzlement or financial loss due to missing primary accounting evidence.
* Criminal law – Embezzlement – Elements: employment by public body, fraudulent appropriation, by virtue of work – burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Causing financial loss – Elements: act/omission, actual loss to government, knowledge or constructive knowledge – proof required.
* Evidence – Missing primary accounting documents and absence of direct transactional proof undermining prosecution’s case.
* Forensic and handwriting evidence – absence of positive linkage to accused weakens attribution of wrongdoing.
|
9 September 2015 |
| June 2015 |
|
|
Bail refused due to procedural defects in supporting affidavits and real risk of applicant absconding (no fixed abode).
* Criminal procedure – Bail – constitutional and statutory framework (Article 23, Trial on Indictments Act ss.14–15) * Procedural compliance – supporting affidavits and filing fees – belated affidavits without fee not entertained * Bail considerations – gravity of offence, antecedents, fixed abode, risk of interfering with witnesses/evidence, adequacy of sureties * Absconding risk – absence of permanent abode and insufficient sureties justify refusal of bail
|
30 June 2015 |
|
Appellant convicted for abusing office by awarding a procurement contract to a non‑prequalified supplier; appeal dismissed.
Anti‑corruption — Abuse of office — Elements: employment in public body; arbitrary act; abuse of authority; prejudice to employer; procurement — award to non‑prequalified supplier; failure to follow accounting and approval procedures; appellate review of factual findings.
|
18 June 2015 |
|
Appellate court upheld conviction for a public prosecutor receiving gratification; circumstantial evidence and sentence were sustained.
Anti‑corruption law – corrupt receipt of gratification by public official; circumstantial evidence – prosecution must exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence; credibility – trial court entitled to prefer complainant over accused; sentence review – appellate interference only where discretion misapplied or manifestly excessive.
|
18 June 2015 |
|
Appeal dismissed; personation conviction supported by evidence and sentences found within statutory discretion.
* Criminal law – Personation/impersonation of a public officer – representation as another person for deception – admissibility and weight of phone recording and witness testimony.
* Anti‑Corruption Act – corrupt solicitation and receipt of gratification – sentencing limits and application of statutory maxima.
* Sentencing – Magistrates Courts Act s.175 – exercise of discretion to order consecutive sentences.
|
18 June 2015 |
|
Administrator convicted for fraudulent conversion and unlawful registration of family land, titles ordered cancelled.
* Criminal law – Fraudulent disposal of trust property – Administrator/trustee duties – conversion of customary land into registered titles without beneficiary consent.
* Property law – Registration of Titles Act – unlawful procurement of leasehold and freehold certificates where co-beneficiaries excluded.
* Evidence – intention to defraud proved by concealment, failure to file estate inventory, forged endorsements, and mortgaging without beneficiaries’ knowledge.
* Remedies – conviction, fines with imprisonment in default, and cancellation of impugned titles.
|
18 June 2015 |
|
State's appeal against respondent's acquittal for theft dismissed for failure to prove requisite fraud/mens rea.
* Criminal law – Appeal against acquittal – appellate court review of record and limitations from not seeing witnesses; * Theft – requirement of fraud/mens rea (knowledge and intent) to sustain theft charge; * Evidentiary sufficiency – signing documents alone insufficient to establish fraud; * Penal Code – prosecution must adduce evidence to invoke statutory provisions (e.g., s.20) to support theft allegation.
|
11 June 2015 |
| May 2015 |
|
|
Appeal dismissed: adoption of related-trial evidence and business records admissible; convictions upheld and refund increased to UGX 67,145,500/=.
Criminal law – corrupt procurement/accountability – causing financial loss; fraudulent false accounting – admissibility of business records; adoption of evidence from related trial; sufficiency of sworn reminders instead of fresh oaths; appellate re-evaluation of evidence and correction of restitution amount.
|
15 May 2015 |
|
Appellate court allowed part of Inspectorate's appeal, convicting the sub-county accounting officer for financial loss, abuse of office and false accounting.
Criminal law – Corruption offences – causing financial loss, abuse of office and false accounting – sufficiency of documentary and oral evidence; Inspectorate of Government prosecutions – no requirement for DPP consent; appellate re-evaluation of trial evidence.
|
12 May 2015 |
| April 2015 |
|
|
Court convicted five for coordinated mobile‑money cyber‑fraud, acquitted three; confessions and electronic evidence were pivotal.
Criminal law – cybercrime – mobile‑money fraud: theft, conspiracy, unauthorised access and electronic fraud; admissibility and weight of charge‑and‑caution statements and CCTV/forensic evidence; aiding and abetting via keylogger procurement.
|
27 April 2015 |
| March 2015 |
|
|
Where an accused, properly notified, voluntarily absconds, the court may close defence and proceed to judgment in absence.
Criminal procedure – trial in absence of accused – Article 28(5) Constitution – waiver by voluntary absence/abscondment – requirement of adequate service and opportunity for counsel – balance of accused’s fair trial rights and public interest; closure of defence and judgment in absence permitted where justified.
|
27 March 2015 |
|
Assistant manager convicted of embezzling UGX 540,796,510; system screenshots, audit and confession proved guilt.
Criminal law – Embezzlement and causing financial loss – Evidentiary weight of system-generated screenshots and internal audit – Corroboration of confession – Burden and standard of proof.
|
9 March 2015 |
|
Use of a SACCO under CDD guidelines was lawful; three officers acquitted, commercial officer convicted for embezzlement and abuse of office.
Criminal law — Corruption offences — Use of SACCOs as financial intermediaries under CDD guidelines; adequacy of MOU; burden to prove intent and knowledge for causing financial loss or neglect of duty; embezzlement and abuse of office proved where sole-signatory status obtained by forgery and funds unaccounted for; conflict of interest requires pre-existing personal interest.
|
3 March 2015 |
| January 2015 |
|
|
Court convicted bank teller and manager of causing financial loss, and customer of theft and conspiracy to defraud.
* Anti‑corruption – Causing financial loss (s.20(1) Anti‑Corruption Act 2009) – teller postings and manager authorisation leading to bank loss. * Theft – withdrawal of funds based on fictitious credits (ss.254(1), 261 Penal Code). * Conspiracy to defraud (s.309 Penal Code) – common intention inferred from actions; prior agreement not strictly necessary. * Evidence – admissibility of statements obtained after detention beyond 48 hours (art.23(4)(b)) – inadmissible. * Electronic evidence – weight of CCTV, transaction logs and internal audit; circumstantial proof may suffice even without forensic imaging if chain is complete.
|
15 January 2015 |