Wakilii

Uganda v Asiimwe and 2 Others (Criminal Case 79 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGHCACD 1 · 2022 Conviction on Counts 1–4; Acquittals on Remaining Counts AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial in the High Court Anti-Corruption Division for abuse of office and conspiracy to defraud
Decision
A1 convicted and remanded for sentencing. A2 and A3 acquitted and discharged.

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

A1 was convicted on four counts of abuse of office for requisitioning UGX 100 million without mandate and outside his directorate, with no budget provision, for fictitious field activities. The funds were irregularly withdrawn and returned to A1's personal account. A2 and A3 were acquitted of abuse of office: approving or processing payments to personal accounts was not proven to be an arbitrary act in the absence of evidence of a rule prohibiting such payments. All three accused were acquitted of conspiracy to defraud for lack of evidence of a common agreement.

Outcome

A1 convicted and remanded for sentencing. A2 and A3 acquitted and discharged.

Facts

A1, acting director of regional services at the Uganda Human Rights Commission, requisitioned UGX 100 million from JLOS funds for purported field activities at four regional human rights offices. The activities fell outside his mandate and belonged to other directorates. No budget provision existed for the request. A2, as accounting officer, approved the payment, and A3 processed it to the personal bank accounts of four regional human rights officers. Upon receipt, A1 telephoned the officers instructing them to withdraw UGX 20 million each and deposit it to his personal account, retaining UGX 5 million for personal use. PW2 complied but later reported the matter, fearing fraud. The activities were never carried out. A1 claimed one refund of UGX 20 million was returned to A3 with a receipt, and another UGX 20 million was his personal money from a savings group.

Issues

  1. Whether A1 had the mandate to requisition the disputed funds
  2. Whether the requisition was a legitimate transaction with a budget line
  3. Whether the UHRC lost the UGX 100 million
  4. Whether money paid to A1 by Rebecca Nassuuna was personal or part of UHRC funds
  5. Whether A1 committed an arbitrary act prejudicial to his employer in abuse of the authority of his office
  6. Whether A2 acted arbitrarily by approving funds to be paid into personal accounts
  7. Whether A3 committed an arbitrary act when he processed funds to personal accounts
  8. Whether the three accused conspired to defraud the UHRC

Orders

  • A1 convicted on counts 1 to 4 (abuse of office).
  • A2 acquitted on counts 5 to 8 (abuse of office).
  • A3 acquitted on counts 9 to 12 (abuse of office).
  • All three accused acquitted on count 13 (conspiracy to defraud).

Rules and key headnotes

Abuse of Office — Mandate and Authority — Requisitioning Funds Outside Directorate Functions
A public officer commits abuse of office under s.11(1) Anti-Corruption Act 2009 when he requisitions public funds for activities falling outside the mandate of his directorate and in the absence of budget provision, even where the request passes through routine verification processes.
Abuse of Office — Essential Ingredients — Arbitrary Act and Prejudice
To secure a conviction for abuse of office, the prosecution must prove that the accused performed an arbitrary act in abuse of the authority of his office and that the act was prejudicial to the interests of the employer. An act that is irregular but causes no prejudice, or causes prejudice but is not arbitrary, does not satisfy the offence.
Public Financial Management — Payment to Personal Accounts — Not Per Se Arbitrary
Approving or processing payment of official funds to the personal bank accounts of public officers is not per se an arbitrary act in the absence of a law, rule, or regulation prohibiting such payments. Where official accounts are non-operational or for reasons of convenience, such payments may be legitimate.
Hearsay Evidence — Inadmissibility Under Evidence Act s.59
Oral evidence of what a witness was told by another person is inadmissible hearsay under s.59 Evidence Act unless the person who perceived the fact directly testifies. A police investigator's testimony as to what an uncharged suspect told him is not admissible to prove the truth of the suspect's statement.
Conspiracy to Defraud — Proof of Common Agreement
To prove conspiracy to defraud, the prosecution must adduce evidence, usually circumstantial, of the conduct of the accused from which the court can infer a common agreement to commit fraud. Suspicion, however strong, is insufficient. Each accused must be shown to have played a complementary role in furtherance of the agreement.
Standard of Proof — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt, but must carry a high degree of probability such that only a remote possibility remains which can be dismissed as possible but not in the least probable.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Israel Epaku v R (1934) 1 EACA 166
  • Dr. Yovantino Akii Agel and Omongoo Geofrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 149 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Asiimwe and 2 Others (Criminal Case 79 of 2019) [2022] UGHCACD 1 (14 January 2022)
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.