Wakilii

Ojom Alex and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal Nos. 115, 192 & 22A of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 223 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from the High Court Anti-Corruption Division sitting as appellate court
Decision
Appellants' convictions for abuse of office and sentences of 30 months' imprisonment and ten-year disqualification from public office confirmed

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.

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 Court of Appeal dismissed the second appeal, holding that: (1) new grounds of appeal not raised in the first appeal cannot be introduced in a second appeal absent demonstrated illegality and leave of court; (2) the first appellate court properly applied the burden of proof in criminal trials and correctly found all elements of abuse of office proved beyond reasonable doubt; (3) testimonies of co-accused may be used corroboratively where independent documentary evidence exists; (4) a detailed judgment demonstrates proper re-evaluation of evidence; and (5) a payment voucher and its attachments may be admitted as a single exhibit where tendered by the maker.

Outcome

Appellants' convictions for abuse of office and sentences of 30 months' imprisonment and ten-year disqualification from public office confirmed

Facts

The three appellants were employees of Alebtong District Local Government convicted of abuse of office. The district had procured fish cages, fingerlings, and feeds from Giant Fish Farming Consultancy through direct procurement authorised by the Chief Administrative Officer, and paid UGX 19,700,000. Despite this, the second appellant initiated a parallel procurement process for the same items from Kings Court Engineering Works. The first appellant (Internal Auditor) and third appellant signed goods received notes for this second supplier. The Chief Financial Officer refused to authorise payment upon discovering the duplication. The trial magistrate convicted the appellants of abuse of office, sentencing each to 30 months' imprisonment and ten-year disqualification from public office. The High Court Anti-Corruption Division sitting as first appellate court upheld the conviction. This second appeal followed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain new grounds not raised in the first appeal in a second appeal confined to matters of law only.
  2. Whether the first appellate court failed to apply the correct standard and burden of proof in upholding the conviction for abuse of office.
  3. Whether the first appellate court erred in relying on testimonies of co-accused persons.
  4. Whether the first appellate court failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence on record.
  5. Whether the payment voucher and its attachments were properly admitted as evidence.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction and sentence of the appellants confirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Second Appeals — Jurisdiction — Limitation to Matters of Law Only
Under Section 45(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, a second appeal from the High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal is confined to matters of law only, not matters of fact or fact and law, and not on severity of sentence. The Court of Appeal is prohibited from re-evaluating evidence or disturbing concurrent findings of fact unless such findings are so perverse as to constitute an error of law.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals — Amendment of Grounds — New Grounds Not Raised in First Appeal
Rule 102(a) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions requires leave of court to introduce new grounds of appeal not specified in the memorandum of appeal. Leave is not automatic but an exercise of judicial discretion to be granted on a case-by-case basis. A party seeking to introduce new grounds on the basis of alleged illegality must demonstrate that the illegality has only recently come to their knowledge. Argumentative grounds that amount to a fishing expedition will be refused as an abuse of court process.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Abuse of Office — Proof of Elements — Burden and Standard of Proof
In prosecutions for abuse of office under Section 11(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed an arbitrary act in the exercise of their functions and that such act was done in abuse of the authority of their office. Where goods have already been legitimately supplied and paid for, a purported second delivery and attempt to process payment for the same goods without supporting contractual documentation is not merely suspicious but fraudulent and constitutes abuse of office.
Evidence — Testimonies of Co-Accused — Use as Corroboration
Unsworn testimony of co-accused persons has limited evidential value and may not be used as primary evidence of guilt. However, such testimony may properly be used to corroborate independent evidence from prosecution witnesses and documentary exhibits. Allegations of bias or inducement in obtaining co-accused testimony must be substantiated with evidence and raised at trial.
Criminal Law & Procedure — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
A first appellate court has a duty to re-evaluate the evidence on record as a whole before arriving at its own independent conclusions. Where the appellate judgment demonstrates a comprehensive analysis of witness testimony and documentary evidence across multiple grounds of appeal, it cannot be said that the court abdicated its duty to re-evaluate. Mere disagreement with the findings of fact resulting from proper re-evaluation does not constitute an error of law.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Payment Vouchers — Admission of Attachments
A payment voucher is not a standalone document but contains supporting attachments including delivery notes, goods received notes, requisitions, and approvals. Where such a voucher and its attachments are tendered by the maker as a single exhibit, this constitutes procedurally sound admission. The attachments need not be individually marked as separate exhibits. Where the accused do not deny signing the documents, any objection to the manner of tendering is an afterthought.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Osheruta Owen and Tumwesigye Frank v Uganda (SCCA No. 50 of 2015)
  • Tumwinomugisha Alex and Others v Uganda (SCCA No. 35 of 2002)
  • Bogere Asiimwe and Senyonga Sunday v Uganda (SCCA No. 39 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ojom Alex and Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal Nos. 115, 192 & 22A of 2023) [2026] UGCA 223 (10 January 2026)
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.