Wakilii

Jamwa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 2 of 2017)

Supreme Court · [2019] UGSC 79 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second criminal appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal, which had upheld a High Court conviction for causing financial loss and, on the prosecution's cross-appeal, also convicted for abuse of office.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; convictions for causing financial loss and abuse of office, and the concurrent sentences of 12 years and 4 years imprisonment, 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 (by majority) dismissed the appeal and upheld both convictions and sentences. It held that the Court of Appeal judgment was valid: a judge who signs a reserved judgment while still a member of the court binds himself, and delivery by a remaining judge after others vacated office did not invalidate it; delay and mis-dating were technicalities cured by Article 126(2)(e). Section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act covers loss to a public body such as NSSF, a strict reading producing an irrational result. The concurrent findings that the appellant arbitrarily sold treasury bonds before maturity, bypassing internal procedures and causing loss, were not shown to be wrong. Severity of sentence is not appealable under Judicature Act s.5(3); the sentences were legal.

Facts

The appellant was Managing Director of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF), a public body that invests workers' savings. NSSF held treasury bonds purchased in 2005 with maturity dates in 2007 and 2008. In October and November 2007, the appellant mandated Crane Bank Ltd to sell three tranches of treasury bonds before their maturity dates at prices below their guaranteed maturity values. The mandate to sell was issued on 3 October 2007, a day before the investment analyst's internal memo requesting authorisation, and the appellant approved the sale the same day he received that memo. The appellant bypassed Standard Chartered Bank, NSSF's registered primary dealer, and did not refer the disposal to the Management Investment Committee or the Board. Evidence showed NSSF was liquid and had no pressing need for cash. The difference between the prices obtained and the guaranteed maturity values was Shs. 3,163,256,502. The appellant contended the sale was a collective decision approved by the Board and the Minister, and that proceeds were profitably reinvested; the courts found no such authorisation.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal judgment, signed by two Justices but delivered by a single remaining Justice after the other panel members had ceased to be members of that court, was a valid judgment.
  2. Whether the offence of causing financial loss under section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act exists in respect of a public body, given that 'public body' was omitted from the latter part of the section.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence on the ingredients of causing financial loss contrary to section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act.
  4. Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence on the ingredients of abuse of office contrary to section 11 of the Anti-Corruption Act.
  5. Whether the sentences imposed and confirmed by the Court of Appeal were legal, and whether the Supreme Court could entertain a ground based on the severity of the sentence.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The decision of the Court of Appeal is upheld.

Key headnotes

Practice and Procedure — Validity of Judgments — Delivery of a Signed Reserved Judgment After Judge Vacates Office
A judge who appends a signature to a reserved judgment while still a member of the court is bound by it and loses the right to alter it once he ceases to be a member; such a signed judgment may validly be delivered by another judge after the signing judge has died, retired or been elevated, provided it was written and signed while the judge was a member of the court.
Administration of Justice — Article 126(2)(e) — Non-Compliance With Court Rules as a Technicality
Inordinate delay in delivering a judgment and failure to date it as of the day of delivery contrary to Rule 33(11) of the Court of Appeal Rules are technicalities that, under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, do not invalidate an otherwise authentic judgment signed by a judge who had jurisdiction when he signed it.
Penal Provisions — Ejusdem Generis and the Presumption Against Irrational Results — Section 20 Anti-Corruption Act
Where a strict or literal construction of a penal provision would produce an irrational result, the stronger presumption that Parliament does not intend an unreasonable result prevails; section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act protects the funds of every institution it names, including a public body, notwithstanding the omission of 'public body' from the latter part of the section.
Anti-Corruption — Causing Financial Loss — Sale of Securities Below Guaranteed Maturity Value
The offence of causing financial loss under section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act does not require an arbitrary act; it is established where an employee knowingly or with reason to believe sells securities before maturity at a price below their guaranteed maturity value, thereby depriving the employer of the difference, and reinvestment of the proceeds does not negate the loss.
Anti-Corruption — Abuse of Office — Arbitrary Act Prejudicial to Employer
Abuse of office under section 11 of the Anti-Corruption Act is committed where an officer does an arbitrary act prejudicial to his employer, such as unilaterally selling assets without following mandatory internal procedures, bypassing the registered primary dealer, and acting without Board or committee authorisation.
Appeals — Second Appellate Court and Concurrent Findings of Fact
A second appellate court faced with concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal will not re-evaluate the evidence or disturb those findings unless it is shown that the courts below failed to evaluate the evidence or were manifestly wrong on findings of fact.
Sentencing — Severity of Sentence Not Appealable — Judicature Act s.5(3)
Under section 5(3) of the Judicature Act, an appeal to the Supreme Court against sentence lies only on a matter of law and not on the severity of the sentence; the court will not interfere with a legal sentence within the statutory maximum.

Legislation cited (18)

  • Anti-Corruption Act, 2009 s.11
  • Anti-Corruption Act, 2009 s.20
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 135(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28(12)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 44
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 129(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 144(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 144(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 147
  • Judicature Act s.5(3)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 33(3)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 33(8)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 33(11)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court Rule 32(8)
  • National Social Security Fund Act s.4(3)
  • National Social Security Fund Act s.30

Cases cited (25)

  • Sarah Kulata Bisangwa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2018)
  • Surendra Singh and Others vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1954) AIR 194
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Fredrick Zaabwe and Mars Trading Ltd (Civil Application No. 17 of 2007)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Uganda Development Bank v National Insurance & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1995)
  • Essaji v. Solanki (1968) EA 218
  • Sgt. Shaban Birumba and Longi Robert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1989)
  • Cramas Properties Ltd vs. Connaught Fur Trimmings Ltd [1965] 2 All ER 382
  • Kassim Mpanga v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1994)
  • Godfrey Walubi & Anor v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2012)
  • The Republic vs Ibrahim Adam & Ors Suit No.FT2/2000 (unreported per. AFREH.JSC)
  • Areet Sam v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2005)
  • Abelle Asuman v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016)
  • Okello Geoffrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2014)
  • Kizito Senkula v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2001)
  • Ogalo s/o Owuora -vs- R (1954) 24 EACA 270
  • James -vs- R (1950) 18 EACA 147
  • Ssekitoleko Yudah and Others v Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2014)
  • R v. Mohamedali Jamal (1948) 15 EACA 126
  • Komakech & Anor v Akol & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2010)
  • Mohammad Mohammad Hamid v Roko Construction Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
  • Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co Advocates, SCCA No. 2 of 1997
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)
  • Yovino v. Rizo, 586 U.S (2019)
  • Van Royen & Ors v. The State 2001(4) SA 396 T
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.