Wakilii

Uganda v Baitwa and Another (Criminal Session 1 of 2019)

High Court · [2025] UGHCACD 12 · 2025 Acquittal Entered 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 on charges of theft, obtaining money by false pretence, and conspiracy to defraud
Decision
Both accused acquitted and discharged; bail security to be refunded

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 High Court acquitted both accused on charges of theft and conspiracy to defraud. The court held that theft occurred when money was fraudulently caused to move out of MTN (U) Ltd's bank account by its own employees, not when it was deposited into the accused's company account. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused directors participated in the theft or had knowledge of the fraud. The court found that the prosecution's failure to call key witnesses — employees of both MTN (U) Ltd and the accused's company who were directly involved in processing the fraudulent invoices — created a missing link that prevented the accused from being connected to the crime.

Outcome

Both accused acquitted and discharged; bail security to be refunded

Facts

Oscar Baitwa and Geoffrey Bihamaiso were brothers, shareholders, and directors of Three Ways Shipping Services Ltd, a clearing and forwarding company contracted by MTN (U) Ltd. Between 2009 and 2012, MTN (U) Ltd alleged that the company had been paid USD 3,800,000 based on 125 false invoices supported by fake airway bills and false delivery notes. Two MTN (U) Ltd employees — Naphtali Were (senior logistics officer) and John Paul Basabose (accounts payables officer) — processed payments using fictitious invoices purporting to be from the accused's company. The fake invoices were mixed with genuine ones to avoid detection. Payments were made in batches periodically. The accused were the only signatories to the company accounts where the funds were deposited. One MTN employee died during trial; the other pleaded guilty under a plea bargain and returned substantial amounts to MTN. Two employees of the accused's company were discharged after the DPP entered a Nolle Prosequi. The accused denied knowledge of the fraud, claimed they only learned of it when MTN complained, and stated they paid USD 300,000 to MTN in good faith and requested account reconciliation, which MTN refused.

Issues

  1. Whether the accused stole USD 3,800,000 from MTN (U) Ltd between 2009 and 2012.
  2. Whether the accused obtained money by false pretence from MTN (U) Ltd.
  3. Whether the accused conspired to defraud MTN (U) Ltd.
  4. At what stage did the theft occur — on the MTN (U) Ltd side or after the disputed funds had been credited to the accused's company accounts?
  5. Whether the accused participated in the theft under the doctrine of common intention.
  6. Whether the corporate veil should be lifted to hold the accused directors personally liable for funds received by their company.

Orders

  • A1 and A2 are acquitted on the charges of theft in count one.
  • A1 and A2 are acquitted on the charges of conspiracy to defraud in count two.
  • Any security deposit to secure bail for A1 and A2 be refunded.

Rules and key headnotes

Theft — Asportation — When Theft is Complete — Money Moving from Original Account
Under section 237(1)(6)(7) of the Penal Code Act, theft occurs when a person fraudulently takes or causes property capable of being stolen to move. Where the property is money, theft occurs when a person causes it to move from one account to another or otherwise out of the original account. Theft is complete as soon as money is moved or caused to move out of the original account with fraudulent intent.
Common Intention — Proof Required — Missing Link Where Key Witnesses Not Called
To establish liability under the doctrine of common intention pursuant to section 20 of the Penal Code Act, the prosecution must prove that the accused were part of a group that had a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another. Where the prosecution discharges key witnesses who were directly involved in the alleged scheme without calling them to testify, and where other key participants have died or pleaded guilty, the failure to adduce their evidence creates a missing link that prevents the accused from being connected to the crime.
Accomplice Evidence — Admissibility — Failure to Call Available Accomplices
Accomplice evidence is admissible provided it is credible, and sometimes it could be the only evidence to explain what happened. Where the prosecution discharges employees who were privy to an alleged fraud scheme and fails to call them as witnesses to connect the accused to the crime, the case becomes a matter of guesswork and speculation.
Lifting the Corporate Veil — Directors' Liability — Signatory Status Alone Insufficient
The fact that accused persons are signatories to a company account where stolen money was deposited does not of itself make them thieves or render them criminally liable. Being a director and signatory to a company account does not automatically establish criminal liability for funds received by the company in the absence of proof of knowledge, participation, or common intention to commit the crime.
Mens Rea — Criminal Intent — Requirement of Proof
In criminal cases there must be mens rea, which is the guilty mind or criminal intent to commit the crime. Mens rea is formed before the actus reus, which is the guilty act or conduct. Where there is no evidence connecting the accused to a scheme or demonstrating criminal intent, the accused cannot be convicted merely because they held positions of authority in a company that received stolen funds.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Uganda v Jeff Lawrence Kiwanuka and 2 Others (Criminal Case No. 2 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Baitwa and Another (Criminal Session 1 of 2019) [2025] UGHCACD 12 (30 April 2025)
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.