Uganda Case Law

Turyahabwa v Attorney General and Another (Consitutional Petition 50 of 2017)

Turyahabwa v Attorney General and Another (Consitutional Petition 50 of 2017) [2024] UGCC 29 (12 August 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court of Uganda

Case number

Consitutional Petition 50 of 2017

Judge

Buteera, DCJ, Cheborion, JCC, Kibeedi Mutangula, JCC, Monica K. Mugenyi, JCC, Eva K. Luswata, JA/JCC

The Constitutional Court held that Section 41(1) and (2) of the Anti-Corruption Act, 2009 does not contravene Article 28(3)(a) or (4) of the Constitution. The Court found that the impugned provisions are rationally connected to the legitimate objective of combating corruption and do not violate the presumption of innocence or privilege against self-incrimination. The request for a sworn statement from the accused is a lawful investigative tool, not an unconstitutional compulsion to self-incriminate, and is proportionate to the public interest in preventing corruption. The Court further held t…

Source excerpt

• Presumption Of Innocence
• Self Incrimination
• Anti Corruption Legislation
• Leadership Code Compliance
• Burden Of Proof
• Public Officer Liability

Kiwanuka v Uganda

Kiwanuka v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2021) [2023] UGCA 399 (29 March 2023)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2021

Judge

Buteera, DCJ, Egonda-Ntende, JA, Monica K. Mugenyi, JA

On second appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed a conviction for abuse of office, holding that prejudice to the employer was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

• Abuse Of Office
• Public Officer Liability
• Procurement Irregularities
• Burden Of Proof
• Elements Of Offence
• Abuse-of-office

Uganda v Robert Baryamwesiga and Fred Kiwankuka

Uganda v Robert Baryamwesiga and Fred Kiwankuka (Criminal Session Case 1 of 2020) [2022] UGHCACD 13 (15 July 2022)

Court

HC: Anti corruption Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Session Case 1 of 2020

Judge

Okuo-Kajuga, J

The High Court convicted two OPM settlement commandants of corruption and abuse of office for taking payments from contractors, but struck out money laundering counts.

• Corruption Offences
• Abuse Of Office
• Public Officer Liability
• Money Laundering Charges
• Sentencing Guidelines
• Public Procurement

Uganda v Tumukunde & Anor (HCT–00–AC–CN 23 of 2018)

Uganda v Tumukunde & Anor (HCT–00–AC–CN 23 of 2018) [2019] UGHCACD 3 (31 July 2019)

Court

HC: Anti corruption Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT–00–AC–CN 23 of 2018

The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal, upholding acquittals on embezzlement, financial loss, abuse of office, and false accounting arising from road works.

• Embezzlement
• Causing Financial Loss
• Abuse Of Office
• False Accounting
• Public Officer Liability
• Audit Evidence

Uganda v Ajuna & 2 Ors (HCT-00-AC-CN 18 of 2018)

Uganda v Ajuna & 2 Ors (HCT-00-AC-CN 18 of 2018) [2018] UGHCACD 2 (16 November 2018)

Court

HC: Anti corruption Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT-00-AC-CN 18 of 2018

The High Court partly allowed Uganda’s appeal, set aside an acquittal, and convicted a police officer of abuse of office for improperly handling exhibit money.

• Embezzlement Of Exhibits
• Abuse Of Office
• Police Misconduct
• Sentencing Guidelines
• Public Officer Liability
• Abuse-of-office

Uganda v SP Ajuna Mark & 2 Ors

Uganda v SP Ajuna Mark & 2 Ors (Anti-corruption Case 18 of 2018) [2018] UGHCACD 9 (16 November 2018)

Court

HC: Anti corruption Division (Uganda)

Case number

Anti-corruption Case 18 of 2018

The High Court upheld most of the acquittals but convicted D/SP Kasozi Jackson of abuse of office for arbitrarily distributing exhibit money recovered from a suspect.

• Embezzlement Of Exhibits
• Abuse Of Office
• Police Misconduct
• Sentencing Guidelines
• Public Officer Liability
• Abuse-of-office

Chandi Jamwa v Uganda

Chandi Jamwa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2011) [2018] UGCA 1 (15 January 2018)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2011

Judge

Kavuma, DCJ, Kakuru, JA, Opio-Aweri, JA

The Court of Appeal upheld a conviction for causing financial loss over premature sale of NSSF bonds, and on cross-appeal convicted the appellant of abuse of office.

• Causing Financial Loss
• Abuse Of Office
• Public Officer Liability
• Sentencing Principles
• Statutory Interpretation
• Causing-financial-loss

Oketch v Attorney General & Anor

Oketch v Attorney General & Anor (Civil Suit No. 0007 of 2012) [2017] UGHCCRD 412 (10 August 2017)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No. 0007 of 2012

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The High Court dismissed a malicious prosecution claim, finding no proof that either defendant initiated the prosecution without reasonable cause or with malice.

• Malicious Prosecution
• Vicarious Liability
• Reasonable And Probable Cause
• Public Officer Liability
• Malicious-prosecution
• Vicarious-liability

Okello v Uganda

Okello v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.035 of 2015) [2015] UGHCCRD 47 (30 November 2015)

Court

HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)

Case number

Criminal Appeal No.035 of 2015

Judge

Tibulya, J

The appellant, as the acting district engineer and core works supervisor, certified completion and payment for bridge works that were incomplete and shoddy, contrary to contract specifications and technical standards. His certification was relied upon by other officials to approve payment, resulting in financial loss to Amuru District Local Government. The evidence demonstrated that the appellant acted arbitrarily, abused his office, and neglected his supervisory duties. The defects in the bridge were identified within the defect liability period, and the appellant failed to ensure rectificat…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Office
• Causing Financial Loss
• Neglect Of Duty
• Public Officer Liability
• Procurement Irregularities

Gizibui & Anor v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN 29 of 2013)

Gizibui & Anor v Uganda (HCT-00-AC-CN 29 of 2013) [2015] UGHCACD 10 (12 May 2015)

Court

HC: Anti corruption Division (Uganda)

Case number

HCT-00-AC-CN 29 of 2013

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

• Causing Financial Loss
• Abuse Of Office
• Embezzlement
• False Accounting
• Public Officer Liability
• Anti Corruption Legislation