Wakilii

Uganda v Nabunya (Criminal Session 2 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCACD 4 · 2019 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial in the Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court
Decision
Accused convicted on all 99 counts (1 count embezzlement, 49 counts forgery, 49 counts uttering false documents)

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 accused, a sales representative employed by Froli Investments (U) Ltd, embezzled UGX 384,662,825 by returning postdated customer cheques, demanding cash instead on the pretext of company liquidity challenges, and converting the cash to her own use. The accused forged 49 bank deposit slips to conceal the theft and fraudulently uttered them to her employer. Evidence from customers, bank officials, and a handwriting expert established the accused authored the false deposit slips. Cheques written in the owner's personal name were held to belong to the company as the company supplied the goods. Accused convicted on all counts of embezzlement, forgery, and uttering false documents.

Outcome

Accused convicted on all 99 counts (1 count embezzlement, 49 counts forgery, 49 counts uttering false documents)

Facts

Nabunya Juliet was employed as a sales representative by Froli Investments (U) Ltd, a company trading in cooking oil and soap supplied by Bidco Company. Her duties included marketing products to customers who paid with postdated cheques. Between May 2014 and January 2017, she returned cheques to customers (Prossy Assimwe, Hope Twasiima Kaheesi, and Isaac Asiimwe) and demanded cash instead, claiming the company faced liquidity challenges. She converted the cash to her own use and forged 49 bank deposit slips purporting to have banked the cheques. The fraud was discovered when the company owner, John Fred Kiyimba, detected fraud in another company he owned and commissioned an external audit by Kwiri Associates. The audit revealed UGX 384,662,825 was stolen through forged deposit slips. Handwriting analysis by document examiner Chelangat Sylvia matched the deposit slips to the accused's handwriting. Bank officials denied signing the deposit slips or receiving the cheques, and distinguished the stamp impressions from the bank's official stamp. The accused denied the charges, claiming Kiyimba was her boyfriend and the charges were fabricated after their relationship soured.

Issues

  1. Whether the accused stole UGX 384,662,825 belonging to Froli Investments (U) Ltd by converting customer payments into cash and retaining the proceeds.
  2. Whether the accused forged 49 bank deposit slips with intent to defraud her employer.
  3. Whether the accused knowingly and fraudulently uttered false bank deposit slips to her employer.
  4. Whether money paid by customers in the name of John Fred Kiyimba personally belonged to Froli Investments (U) Ltd or to Kiyimba as an individual.

Orders

  • Accused convicted of embezzlement contrary to section 19(b)(xiii) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009.
  • Accused convicted of 49 counts of forgery contrary to sections 342 and 347 of the Penal Code Act.
  • Accused convicted of 49 counts of uttering false documents contrary to section 351 of the Penal Code Act.

Rules and key headnotes

Embezzlement — Employee Theft — Fraudulent Intent
An employee who receives money from customers on behalf of her employer by virtue of her employment, converts that money to her own use, and forges documents to conceal the conversion acts fraudulently and commits embezzlement under section 19(b)(xiii) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009.
Company Property — Payments to Owner's Personal Name
Where a company supplies goods to customers, money paid by those customers belongs to the company even if some customers write cheques in the personal name of the company's owner, because the owner supplied no goods personally and any money received in his name is received on behalf of the company.
Forgery — Intent to Defraud — Presumption
Intent to defraud in forgery is presumed to exist under section 346 of the Penal Code Act if at the time the false document was made there existed a specific person capable of being defrauded by it.
Handwriting Analysis — Expert Evidence
A handwriting expert's conclusion that questioned documents were authored by the accused, based on comparison of similarities in design and shape of letters, positioning of words, formatting, and relative sizes and spacing, is admissible evidence of authorship where the expert's findings are unchallenged.
Video Evidence — CCTV Footage — Not Essential
Where uttering of false documents forms part of a series of related crimes including embezzlement and forgery, and the evidence establishes the accused's authorship of the false documents and her responsibility for the transactions, there is no requirement to produce video footage or CCTV recordings to prove utterance.

Legislation cited (11)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Nabunya (Criminal Session 2 of 2018) [2019] UGHCACD 4 (30 August 2019)
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.