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
2 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
2 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
November 2015
Uganda v Obel (HCT-00-AC-SC 7 of 2015) [2015] UGHCACD 20 (10 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
Uganda v Mugerwa & Ors (HCT-00-AC-SC 4 of 2015) [2015] UGHCACD 18 (5 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