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
9 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
9 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
December 2018
Uganda v Lwamafa & 3 Ors (HCT-00-ACD-SC 3 of 2016) [2018] UGHCACD 5 (21 December 2018)
Senior ministry officials and a lawyer convicted for diverting pension funds using forged court documents to obtain Shs15.4bn.
* Criminal law – Diversion of public resources – Payment of legal fees from pension vote – vote control and public finance mandate. * Criminal law – Forgery of judicial documents – false certificates/orders and intention to defraud. * Theft – Receiving public funds obtained by forged documents and fraudulent asportation. * Conspiracy – liability where coordinated acts and procurements establish agreement to defraud. * Public finance – Consolidated Fund, budget votes and unauthorized reallocation.
 21 December 2018
Uganda v Lwamafa Jimmy & 3 Ors (Criminal Session 3 of 2016) [2018] UGHCACD 11 (21 December 2018)
Court convicted accused of diversion, forgery, theft and conspiracy over misdirected pension funds and ordered compensation.
* Public Finance – Diversion of public resources – payments made from pension vote for legal fees and costs not budgeted – accounting officers’ liability; * Forgery – judicial documents – false certificate of taxation and orders used to procure payment; * Theft – receipt and withdrawal of public funds obtained by fraud; * Conspiracy – inference from complementary roles and coordinated acts; * Remedies – custody, compensation and disqualification from public office.
 21 December 2018
Uganda v Kiwanuka & 2 Ors (Criminal Session 2 of 2017) [2018] UGHCACD 4 (13 December 2018)
13 December 2018
November 2018
Uganda v Mpeirwe and 2 Ors (Criminal Appeal 1 of 2018) [2018] UGHCACD 3 (30 November 2018)
30 November 2018
Uganda v Ajuna & 2 Ors (HCT-00-AC-CN 18 of 2018) [2018] UGHCACD 2 (16 November 2018)
16 November 2018
Uganda v SP Ajuna Mark & 2 Ors (Anti-corruption Case 18 of 2018) [2018] UGHCACD 9 (16 November 2018)
16 November 2018
Uganda v Okee (Criminal Appeal 3 of 2018) [2018] UGHCACD 8 (1 November 2018)
Acquittal upheld where prosecution failed to prove hospital ownership and forgery/uttering was not established.
* Criminal law – Embezzlement – requirement to prove employer ownership of property – evidence and identification of assets. * Criminal law – Forgery and uttering – probative value of handwriting expert evidence and need to prove uttering by testimony of alleged recipient. * Evidence – Failure to call key witnesses and institutional asset-management weaknesses undermine prosecution proof. * Precedent – Conviction despite expert exoneration depends on factual matrix; earlier decisions are distinguishable.
 1 November 2018
August 2018
Uganda v Byandala & 6 Ors (Session Case 12 of 2015) [2018] UGHCACD 1 (29 August 2018)
Court convicts key accused for procurement fraud and forgery in road contract, stressing proof of actual loss and culpability.
Criminal law—Abuse of office—Procurement fraud—Causing financial loss—Proof of actual loss—Neglect of duty—Forgery and uttering false documents—Standard of proof in circumstantial evidence—Public procurement—Fraudulent securities—Burden of proof in corruption and theft offences.
 29 August 2018
July 2018
Ssenyonjo v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 7 of 2018) [2018] UGHCACD 7 (27 July 2018)
Appellant’s convictions for soliciting, receiving a gratification and abuse of office upheld; inability to perform the act not a defence.
* Anti‑Corruption – solicitation and receipt of gratification (s.2(a) ACA 2009) – telephone records, trap operations and marked notes as sufficient evidence. * Impossibility of performing promised act – not a defence to solicitation/receipt if officer corruptly demands or accepts money. * Abuse of office – exploiting official position and failing to advise Land Board. * Procedural shortcomings in arrest or contradictions – do not necessarily vitiate otherwise cogent evidence.
 27 July 2018