Wakilii

Uganda v Imere Deo (CR.Sc 72 of 2011)

High Court · [2011] UGHC 137 · 2011 Conviction (Partial) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial before the High Court Anti Corruption Division
Decision
Accused convicted on Count II and sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment. Acquitted on Counts I and III.

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

Held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused solicited UGX 100,000,000, as the identity of the person demanding money in the telephone conversation could not be established. The accused was acquitted on Count I (solicitation). Held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused received UGX 5,000,000 as a gratification from the director of the taxpayer company. The accused was convicted on Count II (receipt of gratification). Held that the prosecution failed to prove the accused arbitrarily reduced the tax position, as no final audit report was produced and the document relied upon bore discrepancies. The accused was acquitted on Count III (abuse of office).

Outcome

Accused convicted on Count II and sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment. Acquitted on Counts I and III.

Facts

The accused, Imere Deo, was a Supervisor with the Uganda Revenue Authority's Domestic Tax Department. He supervised a team conducting a tax audit of Lubmarks Investments Ltd, which arrived at a tentative tax liability of UGX 1,019,878,753. PW7, a director of Lubmarks, testified that the accused told him the liability could be reduced to UGX 230,000,000 if the company paid him UGX 100,000,000. PW7 reported the matter to URA, which arranged a sting operation. On 1 April 2011, during a telephone conversation overheard by investigators PW9 and PW10, someone demanded UGX 100,000,000. On 4 April 2011, PW7 handed the accused a khaki envelope containing UGX 5,000,000 in marked currency. The accused placed the envelope in his socks. Shortly after leaving PW7's car, he was arrested in the parking yard by PW9 and PW10, who recovered the marked money from his socks. The accused was charged with solicitation (Count I), receipt of gratification (Count II), and abuse of office (Count III).

Issues

  1. Whether the accused solicited a gratification of UGX 100,000,000 in exchange for reducing the tax liability of Lubmarks Investments Ltd (Count I — corruption by solicitation).
  2. Whether the accused received UGX 5,000,000 as a gratification in exchange for reducing tax liability (Count II — corruption by receipt).
  3. Whether the accused abused his office as URA Supervisor by soliciting and receiving money and reducing the tax position from UGX 1,019,878,753 to UGX 230,000,000 (Count III — abuse of office).

Orders

  • Accused acquitted on Count I (corruption by solicitation).
  • Accused convicted on Count II (corruption by receipt of gratification).
  • Accused acquitted on Count III (abuse of office).
  • Accused sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment on Count II.

Rules and key headnotes

Corruption — Solicitation — Burden of Proof — Identity of Solicitor
Where the prosecution relies on evidence of a telephone conversation to prove solicitation of a gratification, it must establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the person at the other end of the line. Testimony that the caller demanded money is insufficient if the witnesses did not know the accused or recognise his voice, and no independent evidence links the accused to the call.
Corruption — Receipt of Gratification — Proof by Sting Operation
Receipt of a gratification may be proved by evidence of a sting operation where marked currency is handed to the accused and recovered from his person shortly thereafter. Where the accused is found with the marked money concealed on his body, the court may draw an inference of guilty receipt.
Credibility — Defence of Duress — Concealment of Money in Socks
A defence that the accused was forced at gunpoint to conceal money in his socks is not credible where the alleged coercer had no logical motive to ensure the money was hidden, and the concealment is consistent with an intention to avoid detection of ill-gotten gains.
Abuse of Office — Arbitrary Act — Requirement of Prejudice to Rights
An essential ingredient of the offence of abuse of office is that the act complained of must be prejudicial to the rights of another. A right is an interest recognised and protected by law, respect of which is a duty and disregard of which is a wrong. Where the prosecution fails to prove the arbitrary act occurred, the charge cannot be sustained.
Documentary Evidence — Unsigned Audit Report — Probative Value
Where a document purporting to be an audit report bears the accused's name but the accused denies signing it, and the spaces for other signatories remain blank, the document cannot be relied upon to prove that the accused authored or authorised its contents.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Ssekitoleko v Uganda [1967] EA 531
  • Barungi v Uganda [1988-1990] HCB 68

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Imere Deo (CR.Sc 72 of 2011) [2011] UGHC 137 (15 September 2011)
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.