Besaleri v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 36 of 2014)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 63 · 2018 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal's dismissal of an appeal against conviction and sentence by the High Court (Anti-Corruption Division)

Decision

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentence upheld and the order to refund compensation of Shs 400,000,000 confirmed.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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

On a second appeal the Supreme Court held that it will not disturb the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal unless they failed to evaluate the evidence or were manifestly wrong on the facts. The lower courts properly found that the appellant, a signatory to the Union account, signed a cheque paying UGX 400,000,000 to a non-existent valuer before any vouchers existed, sustaining the convictions for causing financial loss and abuse of office. The compensation order, made under sections 269 and 270 of the Penal Code Act, was neither illegal nor manifestly excessive, and the appellant's hardship in custody was no ground to interfere. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

The appellant and two co-accused were officials of the East Acholi Cooperative Union and signatories to its bank account. After insurgency destroyed Union property, the Union sought and obtained Shs 1,000,000,000 in government compensation through its lawyers. From these funds, Shs 400,000,000 was purportedly paid as valuers' fees to a firm of surveyors. The purported valuer company was found to be non-existent and had never been registered with the Registrar of Companies. The appellant and his co-accused signed the cheque withdrawing the Shs 400,000,000 in cash, which was paid to the unidentifiable payee, and the supporting vouchers were prepared only after the cheque had been drawn and signed. The appellant admitted signing the cheques but contended the payment had been approved by the Union's General Meeting and that he merely implemented that decision. The trial court convicted all three of causing financial loss and abuse of office, sentenced them to four years on each count (concurrent), and ordered recovery of the Shs 400,000,000.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal failed to re-evaluate the appellant's evidence and as a result reached a wrong conclusion on conviction.
Whether the sentence and the order for compensation of UGX 400,000,000 were harsh and excessive and should be set aside.

Orders

Ground one dismissed.
Ground two dismissed.
Appeal dismissed in its entirety.
Order to pay compensation of Shs 400,000,000 confirmed.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Second Appeal — Concurrent Findings of Fact

A second appellate court will not re-evaluate the evidence or interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the High Court and the Court of Appeal unless it is shown that those courts failed to evaluate the evidence or are proved manifestly wrong on their findings of fact.

Criminal Law — Sentencing — Appellate Interference with Discretion

An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed in the exercise of the trial court's discretion unless the sentence is manifestly excessive or so low as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, the trial court ignored a material consideration, or the sentence is wrong in principle.

Criminal Law — Compensation Orders — Penal Code Act ss.269 and 270

A court convicting an accused of causing financial loss may order the accused to compensate or refund the sum lost under sections 269 and 270 of the Penal Code Act, and such an order is neither illegal nor manifestly excessive merely because the accused has served the custodial sentence or suffered loss of property and livelihood during incarceration.

Criminal Procedure — Right to Legal Representation at State Expense — Constitution Article 28(3)(c)

The constitutional entitlement to legal representation at the expense of the state under Article 28(3)(c) is confined to offences carrying a sentence of death or imprisonment for life; an accused charged with an offence outside that category is not entitled to, and should not benefit from, a state brief.

Legislation cited (5)

Penal Code Act s.269
Penal Code Act s.270
Penal Code Act s.87
Constitution of Uganda Article 28(3)(c)
Co-operative Societies Act

Cases cited (2)

Areet Sam v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2005)
Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)

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.