Wakilii

Teddy Ssezzi Cheye v Uganda [2011] UGSC 19

Supreme Court · 2011 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal's affirmance of High Court convictions for embezzlement and forgery
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the appellant's convictions and sentences for embezzlement and forgery, and the order to pay UGX 100,000,000 compensation to the Global Fund, were upheld.

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 Supreme Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the appellant's convictions for embezzlement and forgery. As sole director and sole signatory of Uganda Centre for Accountability's account, the appellant had access to the Global Fund grant by virtue of his office, satisfying section 268(b) of the Penal Code Act. Reliance on section 105 of the Evidence Act—placing the burden of proving facts especially within his knowledge on him—did not shift the legal burden of proof. By procuring another to make false accountability documents, the appellant was guilty of forgery under section 19(2). The compensation order in favour of the Global Fund, the aggrieved party under section 270, was proper. The preliminary objection to grounds 3 to 5 was overruled.

Facts

The Global Fund, a Geneva-based organisation funding the fight against TB, malaria and HIV/AIDS, granted money to the Uganda Government, administered by the Ministry of Health through a Project Management Committee. The appellant floated Uganda Centre for Accountability (UCA), a company limited by guarantee of which he was sole managing director and sole signatory of its Crane Bank account. UCA was awarded UGX 120,000,000 and on 10 February 2005 signed a contract to monitor HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria activities in Rakai, Kabale, Mbarara and Ntungamo districts over twelve months. The money was deposited on 13 March 2005; within days the appellant personally withdrew the bulk (about UGX 96,000,000) and the account was virtually empty within nineteen days. No contracted activity was carried out. The appellant instructed a co-director (PW2) to prepare forged accountability documents. Following the Ogoola Commission of Inquiry, he was charged, convicted of embezzlement and forgery, sentenced to 10 and 3 years' imprisonment, and ordered to pay UGX 100,000,000 in compensation to the Global Fund.

Issues

  1. Whether grounds 3, 4 and 5 could be argued on second appeal when allegedly not raised before the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved the offence of embezzlement under section 268 of the Penal Code Act against the appellant as a company director with access to the funds.
  3. Whether reliance on section 105 of the Evidence Act improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the appellant.
  4. Whether the appellant was liable for forgery on the basis of having procured another person to make false documents under section 19(2) of the Penal Code Act.
  5. Whether the order to compensate the Global Fund was proper where the appellant was convicted of embezzling money accessed through his company.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Convictions, sentences and compensation order upheld.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Facts Especially Within the Knowledge of the Accused — Evidence Act s.105
Where a fact is especially within the knowledge of an accused person, section 105 of the Evidence Act places on him the burden of proving that fact, and reliance on this provision does not shift the legal burden of proving the offence from the prosecution.
Criminal Law — Embezzlement — Director's Access to Funds by Virtue of Office — Penal Code Act s.268(b)
A director, officer or employee who steals money to which he has access by virtue of his office commits embezzlement under section 268(b) of the Penal Code Act, irrespective of whether the indictment establishes that the money belonged to the company.
Criminal Law — Forgery — Procuring Another to Make False Documents — Penal Code Act s.19(2)
A person who procures another to make false documents is guilty of forgery as if he had made them himself; under section 19(2) of the Penal Code Act the acts of the person procured become the acts of the procurer, who may be charged with doing the act.
Criminal Procedure — Second Appeal — Grounds Raised for the First Time
A ground may properly be argued on a second appeal to the Supreme Court where the Court of Appeal in fact pronounced itself on the matter underlying that ground.
Criminal Law — Compensation Order — Aggrieved Party — Penal Code Act s.270
A compensation order may be made in favour of the party aggrieved by the offence under section 270 of the Penal Code Act; a grantor that set the terms for and was harmed by the misuse of granted funds is the aggrieved party for this purpose.
Criminal Procedure — Indictment — Technical Defects Occasioning No Injustice
Technical objections to the framing of an indictment that are not shown to have occasioned any injustice to the accused do not vitiate a conviction.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Penal Code Act s.268(b)
  • Penal Code Act s.268(g)
  • Penal Code Act s.254(2)(c)
  • Penal Code Act s.270
  • Penal Code Act s.342
  • Penal Code Act s.345(a)
  • Penal Code Act s.347
  • Penal Code Act s.19(2)
  • Evidence Act s.105

Cases cited (3)

  • Twinomugisha and 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2002)
  • Tarinyebwa Mubarak and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2000)
  • R v Wines [1953] 2 All ER 1497
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.