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

10 judgments

Advanced search

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

10 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
December 2020
Opiyo Nicholas v Uganda (Corruption Division HCT-00-AC-CN 50 of 2019) [2020] UGHCACD 9 (30 December 2020) Applicant charged with money laundering granted bail where fixed abode and substantial sureties dispelled real risk of absconding or interference. * Criminal law – Money laundering – Bail considerations; presumption of innocence and constitutional right to apply for bail. * Statutory criteria – Trial on Indictments Act ss.14–15: fixed place of abode, sound sureties, risk of absconding. * Evidence – need for concrete proof of risk to investigations or witnesses; allegations alone insufficient to deny bail. * Bail conditions – cash bond, surety bonds, passport deposit, periodic reporting to Registrar.	30 December 2020
Uganda v Kinene & Anor (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2019) [2020] UGHCACD 4 (11 December 2020) Acquittals upheld for lack of proven corrupt intent; seized cash forfeited to the State. Criminal law — Corruption — Offering a gratification: substantive offence in s.2(b) Anti‑Corruption Act 2009; s.2(g) explanatory (agent/participation). Burden of proof — prosecution must establish both actus reus and mens rea beyond reasonable doubt. Investigation — failure to investigate purpose of payment and loss of potential evidence undermines prosecution. Forfeiture — seized funds not to be returned to a denier of ownership; ordered forfeited to the State.	11 December 2020
November 2020
Busale v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2019) [2020] UGHCACD 5 (22 November 2020) Convictions upheld for personation and fraud; sentence amended to credit three days on remand. Criminal law – Personation and obtaining by false pretence; sufficiency of identification evidence without parade; hearsay severability; circumstantial corroboration; constitutional entitlement to remand credit under Article 23(B).	22 November 2020
Uganda v Serufuza Zaake and Another (Corruption Division HCT-00-AC-CN 21 of 2019) [2020] UGHCACD 10 (12 November 2020) Acquittal upheld where unreliable audit evidence, missing primary documents and lack of handwriting proof left reasonable doubt. * Criminal law – Embezzlement – requirement that prosecution prove theft and mens rea beyond reasonable doubt; reliability of audit reports and secondary documentary evidence. * Evidence – admissibility and weight of audit reports; necessity of producing primary/source documents (IROs, receipts, cash books, system records). * Evidence – identity issues: need for handwriting/expert analysis where signature attribution is decisive. * Evidence – extra-judicial confessions: voluntariness and admissibility; confession may not substitute for proof of charged offence or amount. * Appellate review – duty to re-evaluate evidence afresh and weigh strengths and weaknesses of both sides.	12 November 2020
October 2020
Uganda v Geoffrey Kazinda (Session Case HCT-AC/CO 4 of 2016) [2020] UGHCACD 3 (28 October 2020) Accused convicted for illicit enrichment after unexplained hotel expenditure, land and vehicles disproportionate to declared income. Anti‑corruption — Illicit enrichment — Disproportionality between declared income and lifestyle, hotel expenditure, land and vehicles; Leadership Code declarations as evidential baseline; Section 31 presumption; objective reasonableness standard; use of third‑party names to conceal ownership; valuation expert evidence.	28 October 2020
August 2020
Lubega v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2019) [2020] UGHCACD 11 (28 August 2020) Embezzlement conviction replaced by receiving stolen property; compensation order quashed for lack of proper factual basis. Criminal law – Embezzlement v. receiving stolen property; proof of movement of funds; circumstantial evidence and corroboration by bank statements and phone records; requirement for forensic/audit linkage to prove who executed bank transactions; compensation orders must be based on clear factual foundation.	28 August 2020
Uganda v Mudduse (Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2019) [2020] UGHCACD 6 (7 August 2020) Acquittal upheld where contradictory prosecution evidence and lack of proof of procedure created reasonable doubt about embezzlement and abuse. * Criminal law – Embezzlement – proof beyond reasonable doubt – contradictions in prosecution evidence undermining conviction; paper trail ending with accused not decisive when other credible evidence suggests handover. * Criminal law – Abuse of office – requirement to prove existence/content of established remittance procedures before establishing arbitrary conduct. * Appeal – appellate re-evaluation of evidence – deference to trial findings where appellate court concurs that prosecution failed to prove case.	7 August 2020
Mugabo Muzamiru v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2019) [2020] UGHCACD 8 (6 August 2020) Conviction for customs offences upheld on admissions and circumstantial evidence; sentence reduced for failure to consider mitigating factors. * Criminal law – Customs offences – Fraudulent evasion of duty and interference with goods under customs control – application of circumstantial evidence and conduct of accused. * Evidence – Distinction between admission and confession; voluntariness and admissibility of charge and caution statements; consequences of failure to object. * Statutory burden – Section 223(a) EAC Customs Management Act shifts onus to accused to prove lawful export or payment of duties. * Sentence – appellate interference where mitigating factors were not considered.	6 August 2020
June 2020
Busale Oben alias Tumwesigye v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2019) [2020] UGHCACD 2 (29 June 2020) Appeal against convictions dismissed; identification and corroboration upheld; sentence adjusted to credit remand time. * Criminal law – personation of public officer and obtaining money by false pretences – identification at scene – corroboration by vehicle description and conduct; hearsay evidence severable. * Evidence – direct and circumstantial evidence evaluated together; credibility findings of trial court upheld on appeal. * Constitutional law – Article 23(B) – remand time must be credited when imposing sentence.	29 June 2020
Uganda v Namiro (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2019) [2020] UGHCACD 7 (8 June 2020) Section 11(1) permits abuse of office liability where third parties, not only the employer, are prejudiced; influence‑peddling conviction quashed. * Anti‑Corruption Act 2009 s.11(1) – Abuse of office – "prejudicial to the interests of his or her employer or any other person" means prejudice to third parties is actionable; * Land law – failure to follow Land Act procedures for conversion to freehold – deprivation of statutory notice/hearing prejudices third‑party interests; * Influence peddling (s.8) – offence targets the person who acts because of improper influence, not the person exerting influence; conviction of the influencer under s.8 is unsustainable.	8 June 2020