Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Uganda v Kakonge and 2 Others (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2021) [2022] UGHCACD 5 (25 May 2022)
The High Court dismissed the State’s criminal appeal and upheld the acquittal of three respondents in an anti-corruption prosecution over alleged embezzlement and financial loss.
SP No. 02340 Ogwok v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2021) [2022] UGHCACD 3 (28 February 2022)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate failed to properly evaluate all the evidence, particularly regarding which beneficiaries actually received payments and the reliability of defense witnesses. The prosecution only proved embezzlement of Ushs 1,820,000, not the full Ushs 6,000,000 charged. The court held that the burden of proof was not improperly shifted to the accused, and the appellant's rights regarding unsworn evidence and defense options were not violated, as the record showed compliance with procedural requirements. The conviction based on the self-incriminating statement wa…
Source excerpt
Nakiwuge v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 15 of 2019) [2020] UGSC 40 (14 October 2020)
The Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional provision allowing bail to a person who has already been convicted of a criminal offence. Rule 6(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, which purports to allow bail pending appeal for convicted persons, is void for being inconsistent with the Constitution. The precedent set in Arvind Patel v Uganda was found to be wrongly decided. Consequently, the applicant's submissions based on these authorities were rejected, and the application for bail pending appeal was denied. The applicant must continue serving her sentence while her appeal is pending.
Source excerpt
Uganda v Tumukunde & Anor (HCT–00–AC–CN 23 of 2018) [2019] UGHCACD 3 (31 July 2019)
The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal, upholding acquittals on embezzlement, financial loss, abuse of office, and false accounting arising from road works.
Kasangaki Vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2017) [2017] UGCA 49 (10 November 2017)
The court found that the applicants are first offenders, their offences did not involve personal violence, their appeal is not frivolous and has a reasonable possibility of success, and there is a likelihood of substantial delay in the determination of the appeal due to the court's schedule. The applicants demonstrated compliance with previous bail conditions and provided credible evidence of fixed places of abode within the court's jurisdiction, supported by documentation and local council letters. The applicants also presented substantial sureties. The combination of these factors, as outli…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Etyang (Crim. Case No. 0006 of 2014) [2015] UGHCCRD 444 (28 October 2015)
The High Court convicted Etyang Martin of embezzlement and false accounting over Office of the Prime Minister funds for a Karamoja district meeting.
Uganda v Nakiwuge (NO.HCT-00-AC-SC -0015-2014) [2015] UGHCCRD 46 (8 July 2015)
The court found that the accused was a public officer employed by the Government of Uganda, regardless of the source of her salary. The prosecution proved that funds were advanced to the accused for specific government activities, but the evidence, including testimony from witnesses and forensic document analysis, established that the activities did not occur and the accountabilities were false. The accused authored or procured the creation of false documents, including forged receipts and attendance lists, and knowingly submitted them to her superiors. The court rejected the defense's argume…
Source excerpt
Gizibui & Anor v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN 29 of 2013) [2015] UGHCACD 10 (12 May 2015)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by restricting proof of financial loss and false accounting to audit reports, disregarding other documentary and oral evidence that clearly implicated the accused. The Inspectorate of Government does not require DPP consent to prosecute abuse of office, as it has independent constitutional authority. The evidence established that Gizibui Sam (A1) requisitioned and received public funds for activities that were either not implemented or falsely accounted for, causing financial loss and abusing his office. The accountability d…
Source excerpt
Uganda v Tibiwa (HCT-00-SC 90 of 2013) [2014] UGHCACD 4 (20 May 2014)
The High Court acquitted Rose Mary Tibiwa of abuse of office, embezzlement, and false accounting, finding the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Uganda v Acuma Godfrey (Criminal Appeal No. 3/2012) [2012] UGHC 78 (26 April 2012)
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, finding the prosecution had not proved embezzlement, abuse of office, or false accounting beyond reasonable doubt.
