Wakilii

ASP Muhereza Junior Andrew v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 19 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCACD 16 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction and sentence by Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Appellant's conviction and sentence confirmed; appellant remains disqualified from public office for ten years from date of original conviction

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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 High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction for abuse of office under the Anti-Corruption Act. The court held that the appellant, a police officer, committed arbitrary acts by conducting an irregular search, seizing 197 wood logs using false identity and reference numbers, and diverting the logs to a private buyer instead of the stated destination. The actions were wilful breaches of police procedures done in abuse of authority and prejudicial to the Uganda Police Force. The ten-year disqualification from public office was held to be a mandatory consequence of conviction under section 46 of the Anti-Corruption Act.

Facts

The appellant, ASP Muhereza Junior Andrew, was a police officer deployed as officer in charge of Acacia Police Post. On 25 November 2019, he went to Performance Furnishings Ltd's yard in Kawempe, dressed in police uniform, and falsely identified himself as an officer from the Uganda Revenue Authority. He told employees he was conducting an operation and would transport 197 wood logs to URA headquarters for scanning. He used a false reference number when booking in at Katale Police Post and signed the search certificate as AIP Mitango, not his real name. Three lorries transported the logs, leaving after 10:00 pm. When the farm manager followed up at URA headquarters the next day, there was no record of the operation or the logs. The logs were traced to Goods Shed, a commercial spot in Kampala, where 196 were recovered from a private buyer. The appellant was arrested by the Police Professional Standards Unit. He was convicted by the Chief Magistrate's Court of abuse of office and sentenced to a fine of UGX 3,360,000 or one year imprisonment, compensation of UGX 300,000, and a ten-year bar from public office.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate misdirected herself in applying the legal principles governing arbitrary acts under the Anti-Corruption Act.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on the procedure for conducting searches and collecting exhibits.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate properly evaluated all the evidence before convicting the appellant.
  4. Whether the ten-year disqualification from public office was a lawful sentence.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction for abuse of office under Anti-Corruption Act s.11(1) upheld.
  • Sentence of fine of UGX 3,360,000 or one year imprisonment in default upheld.
  • Order for compensation of UGX 300,000 to victims upheld.
  • Ten-year disqualification from holding public office upheld.

Key headnotes

Abuse of Office — Elements of the Offence — Arbitrary Acts
For a conviction under section 11(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove four elements: (1) the accused was an employee of a public body, (2) the accused carried out an arbitrary act, (3) the act was done in abuse of authority of office, and (4) the arbitrary act was prejudicial to the interests of the employer or any other person.
Abuse of Office — Arbitrary Acts — Definition and Scope
An arbitrary act is an action, decision or rule not based on reason, system or plan, and at times unfair or breaking the law. It includes actions based on random choice or personal whim rather than reason or system, or unrestrained and autocratic use of authority. The arbitrary act must be done wilfully, meaning deliberately doing something wrong knowing it to be wrong, or with reckless indifference as to whether it is wrong.
Abuse of Office — Police Officers — Breach of Statutory Duties
Where a police officer exercises statutory powers of search and seizure illegitimately by using false identity, false reference numbers, and converting seized property for private gain, such conduct constitutes arbitrary acts in abuse of authority. It is an abuse of public trust for a police officer to wilfully break the law in complete disregard of statutory mandate, constituting misconduct in conflict with proper performance of duties.
Sentencing — Disqualification from Public Office — Mandatory Consequences
Under section 46 of the Anti-Corruption Act, a person convicted of an offence under sections 2 to 25 (including abuse of office under section 11) shall be disqualified from holding public office for ten years from conviction. This disqualification is a mandatory consequence of conviction, not a matter of judicial discretion.
Witness Testimony — Minor Discrepancies — Effect on Credibility
Minor discrepancies in witness testimony regarding peripheral details such as the false name used by an accused do not discredit the evidence where witnesses have no doubt about the identity of the person who committed the acts. Evidence is only discredited if discrepancies show witnesses are deliberately misleading or lying to the court.
Appeals — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
The duty of a first appellate court is to review the evidence and reconsider the materials before the trial magistrate, coming to its own conclusion while not disregarding the judgment appealed from but carefully weighing and considering it.
Appeals — Time Limits — Waiver by Consent to Reinstatement
Where an appeal is filed outside the statutory 14-day period under section 28(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act but is later dismissed for want of prosecution and the respondent consents to an application for reinstatement, the respondent cannot subsequently raise a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the appeal on grounds of late filing.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Anti-Corruption Act s.11(1)
  • Anti-Corruption Act s.46
  • Police Act s.4
  • Police Act s.21(1)(c)
  • Criminal Procedure Code Act s.28(1)

Cases cited (9)

  • Bogere Moses & Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Pandya v R (1957) EA 336
  • Uganda v Sebyala & Others (1996) EA 204
  • Kiwalabye Benard v Uganda
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Hudson Jackson Andrua & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2016)
  • Uganda v Kazinda (High Court Criminal Trial No. 138 of 2012)
  • Livingstone Kakooza v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993)
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.