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
3 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
3 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
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