Wakilii

Akankwasa v Uganda (Criminal Application 9 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2021] UGSC 18 · 2021 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal (a certificate that the intended third appeal raises a matter of law of great public or general importance) following the Court of Appeal's refusal to certify.
Decision
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; the conviction for abuse of office stands.

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 refused leave for a third appeal. None of the questions raised by the applicant, convicted of abuse of office, raised a matter of law of great public or general importance transcending his own case. Whether a conviction could stand on evidence rejected on another count was a question of fact, not law, because abuse of office and causing financial loss are distinct offences with different ingredients, and evidence may prove one but not the other. The court further held that the National Forestry Authority, a statutory body and procuring entity, was bound by the PPDA, so the applicant could not avoid conviction merely by electing to follow the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act. Application dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant, Damian Akankwasa, was Executive Director of the National Forestry Authority (NFA). He was charged in the Chief Magistrate's Court on two counts: abuse of office under section 11 and causing financial loss under section 20(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009. The charges arose from his endorsing a licence and disposing of forest produce (poles) at UGX 10,000 each without involving the NFA Price Committee and Contracts Committee. He was acquitted of causing financial loss because the evidence of PW2 and PW3 was found unreliable, but convicted of abuse of office and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. His appeals to the High Court and then to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2015) were unsuccessful. He applied to the Court of Appeal for a certificate of public importance, which was dismissed, and then applied to the Supreme Court for leave to lodge a third appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's intended appeal raises a question or matter of law of great public or general importance warranting a certificate or grant of leave for a third appeal to the Supreme Court under section 5(5) of the Judicature Act.
  2. Whether upholding a conviction founded on prosecution evidence rejected as unreliable on another count of the same charge sheet is a question of law or a question of fact.
  3. Whether an officer of a statutory body may be convicted of abuse of office for following sector-specific legislation rather than the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Third Appeals — Certificate/Leave under section 5(5) Judicature Act — Scope of Supreme Court's discretion
On an application for leave under section 5(5) of the Judicature Act, the Supreme Court is not confined to the restrictions placed on the Court of Appeal and may grant leave for a third appeal whenever, in its overall duty to see that justice is done, it considers that the appeal should be heard.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Third Appeals — Meaning of a 'matter of great public or general importance'
A matter qualifies as one of great public or general importance only where its determination transcends the circumstances of the particular case and has a significant bearing on the public interest; mere apprehension of a miscarriage of justice and determinations of fact between the parties are not, by themselves, a basis for certification.
Evidence — Sufficiency — Conviction on one count despite rejection of the same witnesses' evidence on another count
Abuse of office and causing financial loss are distinct offences with different ingredients, and evidence that fails to prove one offence may prove another beyond reasonable doubt; whether a conviction on one count may stand despite rejection of the witnesses' evidence on another count is a question of fact, not of law.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Statutory bodies as procuring entities bound by the PPDA
A statutory body such as the National Forestry Authority is a procuring entity bound to follow the procedures of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, and an officer cannot escape liability for abuse of office merely by electing to follow sector-specific legislation in preference to the PPDA.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature Act s.5(5)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.38(1)(b)
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.11
  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.20(1)
  • National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003 s.42
  • National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003 s.69
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003

Cases cited (5)

  • Namuddu Christine v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 3 of 1999)
  • Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone (Application No. 4 of 2012)
  • [2006] IEHC 250
  • Eng. Samson Bagonza v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2010)
  • Bhatt v R (1957) EA 332
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.