Wakilii

Chandi Jamwa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2011)

Court of Appeal · [2018] UGCA 1 · 2018 Appeal Dismissed; Cross-Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court conviction, consolidated with respondent's cross-appeal against acquittal
Decision
Appellant's appeal dismissed, conviction and 12-year sentence for causing financial loss upheld; cross-appeal allowed, appellant additionally convicted of abuse of office and sentenced to 4 years concurrent

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act, construed ejusdem generis, applies to financial loss caused to insurance companies and public bodies including NSSF, and that 'act' includes illegal omissions under the Interpretation Act. It found the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence and that selling treasury bonds below their guaranteed maturity value constituted financial loss. The cross-appeal succeeded: the appellant's arbitrary, single-handed sale of bonds bypassing the primary dealer amounted to abuse of office under section 11. The conviction and 12-year sentence on causing financial loss were upheld, and a concurrent 4-year sentence imposed for abuse of office.

Facts

David Chandi Jamwa, Managing Director of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF), was charged with causing financial loss and abuse of office. Between September and November 2007, he authorised the sale of NSSF government treasury bonds before their maturity dates to Crane Bank Ltd at prices below their guaranteed maturity value. On 3 October 2007 he mandated Crane Bank to sell three-year-old bonds, and on 4 October approved their sale, bypassing Standard Chartered Bank, NSSF's registered primary dealer. The bonds had only 23 to 145 days remaining to maturity and NSSF held ample liquid cash with no urgent need. The variance between the discounted sale price and the guaranteed maturity price was found to constitute a loss of approximately UGX 2.7 billion. The High Court convicted him of causing financial loss but acquitted him of abuse of office. He appealed the conviction and sentence; the State cross-appealed the acquittal.

Issues

  1. Whether the offence of causing financial loss under section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act applies to loss caused to a public body such as NSSF.
  2. Whether section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act criminalises only acts and not omissions.
  3. Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence to sustain a conviction for causing financial loss.
  4. Whether the trial Judge applied a test unknown to criminal law in convicting the appellant.
  5. Whether the sentence of 12 years' imprisonment and the 10-year disqualification from public office were lawful.
  6. Whether the trial Judge erred in acquitting the appellant of abuse of office contrary to section 11 of the Anti-Corruption Act.

Orders

  • Appellant's appeal dismissed on all grounds.
  • Conviction and 12-year sentence for causing financial loss upheld.
  • Disqualification from public office for 10 years under section 46 upheld.
  • Cross-appeal upheld; appellant convicted on count one of abuse of office.
  • Appellant sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on count one to run concurrently with the 12-year sentence.

Key headnotes

Statutory Interpretation — Ejusdem Generis — Construction of Section 20 Anti-Corruption Act
Section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act, when construed ejusdem generis, extends the offence of causing financial loss to loss caused to insurance companies and public bodies, and the omission of those institutions from the closing words of the section is a matter of draftsmanship that does not alter its meaning.
Statutory Interpretation — Meaning of 'Act' — Inclusion of Illegal Omissions
Under section 2(a) of the Interpretation Act, the word 'act' used in reference to an offence includes illegal omissions, so the words 'or omission' in section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act are added merely for emphasis and do not create a separate offence.
Criminal Law — Causing Financial Loss — Meaning of Financial Loss
Selling treasury bonds before their maturity date at a price below the guaranteed maturity value constitutes financial loss, even where the sale price exceeds the original purchase price and even where the sale may otherwise make business sense.
Criminal Law — Causing Financial Loss — Elements Distinguished from Abuse of Office
The offence of causing financial loss under section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act does not require proof of an arbitrary act, whereas the offence of abuse of office under section 11 requires that the act be arbitrary and prejudicial to the interests of the employer.
Criminal Law — Sentencing — Appellate Interference and Statutory Disqualification
An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence unless the trial Judge acted on a wrong principle, overlooked a material factor, or the sentence is illegal or manifestly harsh; the statutory disqualification from public office under section 46 of the Anti-Corruption Act follows automatically upon conviction and the court has no discretion to impose, remove or vary it.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.20
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.11
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.46
  • Penal Code Act s.269
  • Interpretation Act (Cap 3) s.2(a)
  • NSSF Act s.4
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.30(1)
  • Rules of the Court of Appeal r.66(2)

Cases cited (11)

  • Kassim Mpanga v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1994)
  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Okethi Okale and others v Republic [1965] EA 555
  • Fr. Narcensio Begumisa and others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • The Republic versus Ibrahim Adam and others Suit No.FT 2/2000 (unreported)
  • Mallam Ali Yusuf Isa urs. The Republic
  • James s/o Yoram v Rex (1950) 18 EACA 147
  • Ogalo s/o Owoura v Regina (1954) 24 EACA 270
  • Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2001)
  • Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
  • Ssemanda Christopher and another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2010)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.