Wakilii

Imere v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 16 of 2015)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 89 · 2018 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal's confirmation of a High Court (Anti-Corruption Division) conviction for corruption
Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence for corruption confirmed

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

On a second appeal against a corruption conviction, the Supreme Court held that a ground going to the legality of the trial may be raised for the first time on second appeal. The indictment was not defective: it specified the offence and particulars sufficient to give reasonable information of its nature under section 22 of the Trial on Indictments Act and Article 28, and the punishment section need not be cited. The Court of Appeal had properly re-evaluated the evidence; the trap money was voluntarily received, not dramatically placed on the appellant, and duress was an afterthought. Finding no error in the concurrent findings, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

Facts

The appellant, a Uganda Revenue Authority revenue officer and supervisor, led a three-person team auditing Lumbarks Investments Limited. The audit assessed the company's tax liability at shs 1,019,878,753. The company's director, Mr. Sebyala, disputed the assessment, and the team agreed to halt the process pending further documentation while two team members went on leave. The appellant then approached Mr. Sebyala alone and solicited shs 100,000,000 in exchange for reducing the liability to shs 230,000,000, and unilaterally entered that reduced figure. Mr. Sebyala reported the demand, and URA's internal compliance unit, with investigators, marked shs 5,000,000 and had him hand it to the appellant as an initial deposit at the Crested Towers parking yard, where the appellant received the money and was arrested. The appellant claimed he was threatened at gunpoint and forced to take an envelope. He was acquitted on two counts but convicted on count two of corruption.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding a conviction allegedly founded on a defective indictment that named no person from whom the bribe was received and omitted the punishment section.
  2. Whether a ground touching the legality of the trial may be raised for the first time on a second appeal despite not having been raised in the lower courts.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal failed in its duty as first appellate court to adequately re-evaluate the circumstantial evidence on which the corruption conviction rested.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The decision and orders of the Court of Appeal are upheld.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Appeals — Raising a new ground on second appeal touching legality of trial
A ground of appeal not raised in the lower courts may be raised for the first time on a second appeal where it touches the legality of the trial, and the court has inherent jurisdiction to take cognisance of such a ground suo moto, without offending the rules requiring grounds to be set out in the memorandum of appeal.
Criminal Procedure — Indictments — Sufficiency of particulars and omission of punishment section
An indictment is sufficient if it states the specific offence with such particulars as give reasonable information as to the nature of the offence charged; it need only refer to the section creating the offence, and the omission of the sanctioning or punishment provision does not render the indictment defective.
Criminal Procedure — Defective indictment — Test of failure of justice
Not every irregularity or defect in an indictment renders the proceedings a nullity; the test is the effect of the defect on the trial and conviction and whether it occasioned a failure of justice, and a conviction stands where the accused was neither embarrassed nor prejudiced.
Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Standard for conviction
Before convicting on circumstantial evidence, the court must find that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.
Evidence — Concurrent findings of fact — Powers of a second appellate court
A second appellate court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the two lower courts only where satisfied that they were grossly wrong or applied wrong principles of law, bearing in mind it did not see or hear the witnesses.
Criminal Law — Corruption — Solicitation and acceptance of gratification by a public official
The offence of corruption under section 2(a) of the Anti-Corruption Act is committed where a public official solicits or accepts gratification in exchange for an act or omission in the performance of his public functions, and is complete upon voluntary receipt of the gratification.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Anti Corruption Act 2009 s.2(a)
  • Anti Corruption Act 2009 s.11(i)
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.22
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.25
  • Trial on Indictments Act s.139
  • Magistrates' Courts Act s.168
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.62(2)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.70(1)(a)

Cases cited (15)

  • Bashir Ssali v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2003)
  • Elizabeth Nalumansi Wamala v Jolly Kasande & Others (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2015)
  • Uganda v Dickens Elatu & Another (Criminal Revision No. 71 of 1972)
  • Androa Asenua & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • R Vs Thakar Singh S/o Kahir Singh (1934) 1 EACA 110
  • R Vs Akbarali Jetha (1947) 14 EACA 122
  • Sewa Singh Mandhia Vs R (1966) EA 315
  • Bradfold Election Petition No. 2 (1869) 19 LT 728
  • Lynch Vs Director Public Prosecutions of Northern Ireland (1975) 1 ALL ER 917
  • Pandya V R (1957) EA 570
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Kakooza Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2008)
  • Akbar Godi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2015)
  • Simon Musoke Vs R (1958) E.A.715
  • Teper Vs R (1952) 2 AER 447
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.