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
May 2023
Mukiibi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 9 of 2022) [2023] UGHCACD 4 (17 May 2023)
Conviction quashed and retrial ordered where trial court made omnibus findings without specific findings on each offence and accused.
* Criminal procedure – Judgment – Requirement under s.136(1) MCA to state points for determination, decision and reasons – necessity of findings on ingredients of each offence and against each accused individually. * Evidence – Reliance on unsworn/co-accused statements and circumstantial evidence – need for corroboration and assessment of witness demeanour. * Appeal – Defective/omnibus judgment may be incurable where there is insufficient material for appellate determination; retrial ordered.
 17 May 2023
Uganda v Musinguzi and Another (Criminal Session Case 2 of 2022) [2023] UGHCACD 3 (17 May 2023)
PHRO convicted for initiating payroll for unappointed teachers; DEO acquitted for lacking duty to verify appointments.
* Anti‑corruption – Abuse of office – Uploading unverified appointees onto IPPS – duty of PHRO to verify Instrument of Appointment – prejudice to employer (loss of salaries and arrears). * Administrative law – Delegation and reliance on Deputy CAO not a defence where statutory/technical duty to verify exists. * Evidence – conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion insufficient to convict non‑participating officers.
 17 May 2023