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
6 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
6 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
November 2016
Uganda v Lwamafa & 2 Ors (Criminal Session 9 of 2015) [2016] UGHCACD 4 (11 November 2016)
Senior ministry officers convicted of causing financial loss, abuse of office, false accounting, conspiracy and diversion of public funds.
Anti‑corruption — causing financial loss; abuse of office; false accounting by public officers; conspiracy to defraud; diversion of public resources; unlawful budget item (NSSF) for pensionable civil servants; syndicate involving ministry, Treasury and bank; convictions and concurrent custodial sentences; joint compensation order (UGX 50 billion).
 11 November 2016
October 2016
Uganda v Kigoye (HCT-00-AC-SC 5 of 2015) [2016] UGHCACD 5 (13 October 2016)
Court convicted the accused of embezzlement and fraudulent false accounting based on forged carbon receipts and corroborative evidence.
Criminal law – Embezzlement – Manipulation of receipt books (carbon-slitting) to create false credits and obtain cash from third parties. Criminal law – Fraudulent false accounting – False entries in company books with intent to defraud. Evidence – Handwriting expert opinion, bank deposit slips and carbon copies admissible and sufficient where originals absent. Evidence – Absence of advertiser witnesses and internal control weaknesses do not necessarily defeat prosecution. Inference – Sudden resignation/flight as probative conduct indicative of consciousness of guilt.
 13 October 2016
September 2016
Museule v Uganda (IGG) (Criminal Appeal 40 of 2015) [2016] UGHCACD 6 (20 September 2016)
Appellant convicted for soliciting and receiving gratification; fake notes and trap evidence upheld as proving mens rea and guilt.
Anti-Corruption — solicitation and receipt of gratification — use of trap operations and evidence from participants — admissibility and corroboration of trap evidence — fake notes and mens rea — entrapment doctrine.
 20 September 2016
April 2016
Kalungi v Uganda (Corruption Division HCT-00-AC-CN 41 of 2015) [2016] UGHCACD 2 (28 April 2016)
Separate charges of soliciting and receiving gratification valid; evidence (including electronic) sustained convictions; appeal dismissed.
Criminal law – Anti‑Corruption Act s.2(a) – soliciting and receiving gratification may be charged separately; Charge‑sheet irregularity not fatal absent prejudice; Contradictions in prosecution evidence must be material to cause acquittal; Burden of proof remains on prosecution despite adverse observations about defence; Failure to recover cash not fatal where circumstantial and documentary evidence (photocopies/serial numbers) and witness identification support prosecution; Electronic evidence admissible if authenticated.
 28 April 2016
Malambala & Anor v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN 27 of 2015) [2016] UGHCACD 3 (11 April 2016)
Marked trap money and incriminating documentation established corrupt gratification under s.2(a); appeal dismissed.
Anti‑corruption Act s.2(a) – gratification – encompasses past, present and future acts or omissions; Proof by marked/serialised trap money and incriminating documentation; Loan‑repayment defence held to be afterthought; Appellate re‑evaluation of factual findings and credibility.
 11 April 2016
January 2016
Asiimwe v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN 36 of 2015) [2016] UGHCACD 1 (6 January 2016)
Signing a payment voucher and failing to account for those funds constitutes embezzlement and abuse of office.
• Corruption offences – embezzlement and abuse of office; • Evidentiary value of payment vouchers as proof of receipt on behalf of employer; • Conversion occurs on fraudulent appropriation regardless of personal benefit; • Absence of formal contract/invoice does not negate employer’s proprietary rights over funds received in its name; • Sentencing – appellate restraint but adjustment of restitution where part of funds was legitimately expended.
 6 January 2016