Natanga & 3 Ors v Uganda (Consolidated Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 2017, 386 of 2016 and 369 of 2016)

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

On a consolidated appeal from Anti-Corruption Division convictions arising from the procurement of 500,000 coffee seedlings, the Court of Appeal re-evaluated the evidence. It held that the particulars of abuse of office need not specify each regulation breached, but that a person cannot be convicted of abuse of office in relation to procurement unless the authority of their office extends to procurement. It also considered whether ingredients were proved beyond reasonable doubt and whether the compensation orders were lawful, noting compensation is not provided for under section 11 of the Anti-Corruption Act and that no material loss to government had been established by audit evidence.

Outcome

Appeal Partly Allowed

Facts

In the financial year 2010/2011 Manafwa District received UGX 300,000,000 from the NAADS Secretariat for the procurement of 500,000 coffee seedlings for distribution to farmers, the procurement being delegated to the district local government. The 1st appellant was the District NAADS Coordinator, the 2nd appellant the Chief Administrative Officer, the 3rd appellant the district farmers' forum chairperson, and the 4th appellant the Sub-county Chief of Butiru. The Chief Administrative Officer instructed the District NAADS Coordinator to expedite the process rather than referring it to the district contracts committee, and the coordinator instructed Butiru Sub-county to conduct the procurement. A tender was purportedly awarded to Shisuwabula Enterprises, whose director was the 3rd appellant's son. Documents including a distribution list, verification report, delivery note and backdated procurement minutes were used to obtain payment before seedlings were delivered. Prosecution evidence indicated about 303,000 seedlings were later delivered by nursery operators, largely in 2012.

Issues

1. Whether the particulars of the offence of abuse of office were insufficient under section 25(c) of the Trial on Indictments Act for failing to specify the procurement laws or regulations contravened.
2. Whether the 1st appellant, as District NAADS Coordinator, could be liable for abuse of office by breach of procurement laws when he had no statutory role in the procurement framework.
3. Whether the ingredients of the offences of abuse of office, influence-peddling, forgery, fraudulent false accounting and preparation to commit an offence were proved beyond reasonable doubt against each appellant.
4. Whether the government suffered material loss and whether the orders for compensation were lawful under section 11 of the Anti-Corruption Act, section 126(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act and section 7 of the Anti-Corruption Act.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (22)

• Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.11(1)
• Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.8
• Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.26
• Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.23(b)
• Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.56(b)
• Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.6
• Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.7
• Penal Code Act s.342
• Penal Code Act s.347
• Penal Code Act s.351
• Trial on Indictments Act s.25(c)
• Trial on Indictments Act s.126(1)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda article 119
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda article 126(2)(c)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda article 180
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda article 257
• Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006 reg.13
• Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006 reg.14
• Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006 reg.15
• Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006 reg.17
• PPDA (Amendment) Act 2011 s.3
• Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (17)

• Kato Kyambadde and Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2014)
• Bukenya and Others v Uganda [1972] EA 549
• Nalongo Naziwa Josephine v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2009)
• Alfred Tajar v Uganda EACA Appeal No 167 of 1969 (unreported)
• Engineer Samson Bagonza v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2010)
• Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 2001)
• Wanyaka Samuel Huxley v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2015)
• Sgt. Baluku Samuel and Another v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2011)
• Mulindwa James v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2014)
• Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
• Selle and Another v Associated Motor Boat Company [1968] EA 123
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Bogere Moses and Another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
• Engineers Investments Ltd v Attorney General and KCCA (HCCS No. 331 of 2012)
• Nsimbe Holdings Ltd v Attorney General and Inspector General of Government (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2006)
• Uganda Broadcasting Corporation v SINBA (K) Ltd and Others (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 12 of 2004)
• Arnold Brooklyn & Company v Kampala Capital City Authority and Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2013)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.