Odong & Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 8 of 2017)

Supreme Court · [2018] UGSC 92 · 2018 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal, which had partly allowed the appellants' first appeal against conviction and sentence under the Anti-Corruption Act.

Decision

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences on count 2 (corruptly accepting a gratification) and count 3 (abuse of office) 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 criminal appeal, the Supreme Court held that a second appellate court will not re-evaluate the whole evidence unless the first appellate court failed to do so adequately, and found the Court of Appeal had properly re-evaluated the evidence. It held that corruptly soliciting and corruptly accepting a gratification under section 2(a) of the Anti-Corruption Act are distinct acts joined by "or"; either ingredient can stand alone, so a conviction for accepting a gratification can be upheld even where no solicitation is proved. The forensic forgery evidence had no bearing on counts 2 and 3, and the appellants abused their office. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

Both appellants were serving police officers. The 1st appellant was contracted by an NGO (SUHURU) to train paralegals for a stated fee of 300,000/=, but learned through a whistle-blower that he was actually entitled to 1,000,000/= and that payment documents had been falsified. The appellants confronted the NGO's director, PW1, who paid the extra 700,000/=. The appellants also opened a forgery case file against PW1 at Lira Police Station, in which they were both complainants and investigators. They then demanded a further 1,000,000/= from PW1 to drop the forgery case. PW1 reported the demand to the Special Investigations Unit, which set a trap. The appellants were arrested after receiving 400,000/= from PW1's wife, PW2, as part of the demanded sum. They were charged under the Anti-Corruption Act with soliciting and accepting a gratification and abuse of office, convicted on all counts by the High Court, and partly succeeded in the Court of Appeal, which quashed count 1 but upheld counts 2 and 3.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal, as the first appellate court, properly carried out its duty to re-evaluate the evidence.
Whether the appellants received the 400,000/= as a gratification to induce them to drop the forgery case against PW1, so as to sustain the conviction for corruptly accepting a gratification.
Whether the courts below erred in failing to re-evaluate the forensic evidence of DW5 concerning the alleged forgery of the 1st appellant's signature, and whether that evidence bore on counts 2 and 3.
Whether the appellants' conduct in opening a police file in which they were both complainants and investigators amounted to abuse of office.

Orders

Appeal dismissed.
Findings and decision of the Court of Appeal on counts 2 and 3 affirmed.

Key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Second Appeal — Limits on Re-evaluation of Evidence

A second appellate court is not required to re-evaluate the whole of the evidence unless it is found that the first appellate court did not sufficiently re-evaluate the evidence to draw its own conclusion.

Anti-Corruption Act — Section 2(a) — Disjunctive "Solicitation or Acceptance"

The operative words of section 2(a) of the Anti-Corruption Act are "solicitation" or "acceptance"; the two acts are distinct and the disjunctive "or" means each ingredient can stand alone and need not be proved jointly.

Corruption — Corruptly Accepting a Gratification — Proof Without Solicitation

A conviction for corruptly accepting a gratification may be upheld even where no solicitation is proved, since a public official can corruptly receive a gratification without soliciting it where the inducement comes from the giver.

Corruption — Abuse of Office — Police Officer as Complainant and Investigator

A police officer who irregularly opens a case file in which he is simultaneously complainant and investigating officer, in order to extract money, acts illegally and prejudicially to the public body, establishing abuse of office.

First Appellate Court — Style and Adequacy of Re-evaluation

There is no set format to which the re-evaluation of evidence by a first appellate court must conform; the test of adequacy is a question of substance, not the style or length of the analysis, and phrases such as "it appears to us" do not indicate a failure to re-evaluate.

Legislation cited (10)

Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.2(a)
Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.2(b)
Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.26(1)
Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.11(1)
Computer Misuse Act 2011 s.9
Constitution of Uganda Article 211
Constitution of Uganda Article 212
Court of Appeal Rules Rule 30
Court of Appeal Rules Rule 29(1)
Supreme Court Rules Rule 62(2)

Cases cited (9)

Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
Kazarwa Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2015)
Obwalatum v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2015)
Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese & Anor v Asaba (Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2011)
Mugizi Leonard v Uganda (No. 1 of 2014)
Uganda v Muwonge (Criminal Case No. 738 of 2009)
Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)
Francis Sembuya v Alport Services Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1999)
Ephraim Orgoru Odongo & Another v Francis Benega Bonge (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1987)

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.