THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA
HOLDEN AT KAMPALA
CORAM HON. MR. JUSTICE G.M. OKELLO, JA.;
HON. MR JUSTICE S.G. ENGWAU, JA.;
HON. MR JUSTICE A. TWINOMUJUNI, JA.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.67 OF 1999
DR. JOHN MUDUSU ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPELLANT
UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the decision of the High Court (Kania .J.)
sitting at Mbale on 28/5/99 in Criminal Appeal
No. 56 of 1998).
This is a second appeal. The appellant was charged before the Chief Magistrate’s Court of Tororo on three counts namely:
The facts which gave rise to this appeal are brief. The appellant was employed by Government as a District Medical Officer (DMO) for Tororo District. Busolwe Hospital in Tororo District was undergoing renovation. A Management Committee was set up as an administrative arrangement to oversee the renovation. On 14/2/95 the committee held a meeting under the chairmanship of the appellant. The meeting resolved as follows:
(1) that the contractor renovating the Hospital be paid immediately Shs. 19m/= to enable him to continue with the work,
(2) that in future, payments would only be effected after an interim certificate of work had been issued duly signed by the Supervisor of Works and the Medical Superintendent.
In his view, the act was normal, within the scope of the power of his office and for the benefit of his employer. The trial Magistrate rejected that defence and convicted him as already stated. The High Court confirmed that rejection thus prompting this appeal.
When the appeal was called for hearing, counsel for the respondent did not appear even though there was evidence of due service of Hearing Notice on them. As there was no explanation for their absence, we ordered the hearing of the appeal to proceed in the respondent’s absence under rule 72 (9) of the Court of Appeal Rules Directions 1996. (Legal Notice No. 11 of 1996).
There are four grounds of appeal namely:
(1) That the learned appellate judge erred in law to hold that it was unnecessary to obtain written consent of the Director of Public Prosecution on the amended charge sheet.
(2) That the learned appellate judge erred in law in holding that the essential ingredients of the offence had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(3) That the learned appellate judge erred in law in basing his decision on evidence which was inadmissible.
(4) The learned appellate judge erred in law in failing to consider a ground which was argued before him.
In Abdulla Suleiman’s case (supra) the defunct Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa referred to section 230 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code which neither the Zanzibar Criminal Procedure Decree nor our own Magistrates Court Act or Criminal Procedure Code has a corresponding section and said:-
The appellant’s complaint in ground 2 is that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt ingredient’s Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the offence of Abuse of Office. These ingredients are:
(2) - that the appellant’s act complained of was arbitrary,
(3) - that the act was prejudicial to his employer or other person and;
(4)- that the act was in abuse of the authority of his office.
The appellant’s act complained of was his endorsement of the alteration of a figure on voucher from l9m/= to 36m/= for payment to the Contractor (Gay Way Services) for renovation work done to the Busolwe Hospital. It was argued for the appellant that appellant’s failure to seek approval of the Management Committee did not make his act arbitrary or an abuse of office and was not prejudicial to the interest of his employer. In his view, the consent of the Management Committee was not an essential part of the laid down procedure as the committee was Ad-hoc and its role was only advisory.
The respondent’s contention in the court below was that the alteration of the figure by the appellant without recourse to Busolwe Hospital Management Committee for approval was arbitrary, prejudicial to the interest of the appellant’s employer as it deprived it of money which should have financed other services and that the act was an abuse of the authority of the appellant’s office as he acted without a reasonable cause.
The appellate judge in the court below dealt with the matter in this way:-
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the alteration was made in response to an interim certificate that was duly endorsed.
There is no dispute that the appellant altered the figure on the voucher in his capacity as the acting Medical Superintendent of Busolwe Hospital. In that capacity he had power to requisition for the money. In other words he crossed the figure l9m/= and requisitioned for 36m/= and routed the voucher through the procedure explained above. Dr. Mweru and Patrick Okwerede both agreed that no fault was found with the procedure adopted by the appellant as the internal auditor would have detected it. Patrick Okwerede further testified that the amount altered was to correspond to the figure in the interim certificate duly endorsed. In his view, no loss was caused to the Hospital or the District by that payment as the amount paid was even less than the figure shown in the interim certificate. That evidence was supported by the evidence of Odongo Richard.
In our view, if the appellant had the power to requisition for the money for payment against an interim certificate without prior approval of the management committee as shown above, we think that he must also have the power to alter the figure he is requisitioning where necessary without recourse to the Management Committee for approval. There is no regulation shown to make approval of the Management Committee a prior condition before an amount is requisitioned or altered by the Medical Superintendent We find on the evidence available that the appellant’s act was not arbitrary as he did not only act within the scope of the power of his office but also in accordance with the accepted payment procedure and; was not prejudicial to the interest of his employer.
Ground 2 therefore succeeds. In the premises this is enough to dispose off the appeal.
The appeal is allowed, conviction is quashed and the sentence is set aside. If the fine imposed was paid by the appellant, it must be refunded.
Dated at Kampala this 17th day of December 1999.
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
JUSTICE OF APPEAL