Wakilii

Uganda v Nandutu Agnes (Criminal Session Case No. 2 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHCACD 11 · 2026 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial arising from indictment on one count of Dealing with Suspect Property under the Anti-Corruption Act
Decision
Accused convicted of dealing with suspect property and sentenced to four years' imprisonment with a ten-year bar from public office

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 held that the accused, as Minister of State for Karamoja Affairs, dealt with 2,000 iron sheets by receiving and holding them knowing or having reason to believe they were diverted from a government community empowerment programme for vulnerable groups in Karamoja, thereby committing the offence of dealing with suspect property contrary to Section 21(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act. The diversion of iron sheets procured for Karamoja to persons outside the intended beneficiaries constituted loss of public property, and the accused's position, attendance at the programme launch, and subsequent conduct demonstrated knowledge or reason to believe the property was proceeds of corruption. The accused was convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

Outcome

Accused convicted of dealing with suspect property and sentenced to four years' imprisonment with a ten-year bar from public office

Facts

Between June and July 2022, the accused, then Minister of State for Karamoja Affairs and Woman MP for Bududa District, received 2,000 iron sheets marked 'Office of the Prime Minister' through her Political Assistant. The iron sheets were part of a consignment of 10,000 procured under a supplementary budget of UGX 39.94 billion for a Karamoja community empowerment and disarmament programme targeting vulnerable groups. Following a requisition for 10,000 iron sheets for the programme launch presided over by the President in Moroto on 13 June 2022, only 1,000 were delivered to Moroto, with 650 distributed to 25 beneficiaries at the launch. The President directed that distribution be halted until building blocks could also be provided. Despite this directive, on 23 June 2022, Minister Kitutu allocated 2,000 iron sheets to the accused. The accused stored the iron sheets first at her Political Assistant's garage, then at her farm in Mukono for ten months until police recovered 1,677 iron sheets in March 2023. The accused claimed the iron sheets were allocated for landslide victims in Bududa, but produced no requisition or documentary evidence to support this, and never informed the Bududa District authorities she had received the iron sheets.

Issues

  1. Whether the accused dealt with property within the meaning of Section 21(2)(a) of the Anti-Corruption Act.
  2. Whether the 2,000 iron sheets were acquired as a result of an offence under the Anti-Corruption Act.
  3. Whether the accused at the time of dealing with the property believed or had reason to believe that it had been acquired as a result of an offence under the Act.

Orders

  • The convict is sentenced to imprisonment for four (4) years.
  • The period spent on remand shall be deducted from the sentence.
  • All 1,585 iron sheets tendered in court and verified during physical count are to be returned to the Office of the Prime Minister.
  • The convict is barred from holding any public office for ten (10) years from the date of conviction.
  • Bail money deposited in court is to be refunded to the accused.
  • All securities deposited for the grant of bail are to be returned.
  • All sureties are discharged.

Rules and key headnotes

Burden of Proof — Standard of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The evidential burden to prove the ingredients of any criminal offence always rests with the prosecution once the accused denies committing the offence, and the burden does not shift to the accused unless there is a specific statutory provision requiring the accused to prove certain facts.
Anti-Corruption — Dealing with Suspect Property — Elements of the Offence
To prove the offence of dealing with suspect property under Section 21(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, the prosecution must establish: (i) that the accused dealt with property within the meaning of Section 21(2)(a) by holding, receiving or concealing it; (ii) that the property was acquired as a result of an offence under the Anti-Corruption Act; and (iii) that the accused knew or had reason to believe the property was acquired as a result of such an offence.
Anti-Corruption — Dealing with Suspect Property — Predicate Offence
The offence of dealing with suspect property requires proof that the property was acquired through a predicate corruption offence under the Anti-Corruption Act, and while there is no requirement for a conviction on the predicate offence, the prosecution must lead evidence to satisfy the court to the criminal standard that the property's corrupt origin is established.
Anti-Corruption — Loss of Public Property — Meaning of Loss
Loss of public property under Section 9(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act encompasses deprivation, detriment, damage, or injury to the State, including diversion of public resources from their intended beneficiaries. Loss is established where property procured for a specific government programme is diverted to persons not intended as beneficiaries, thereby depriving the intended recipients of the benefit and causing failure by Government to properly keep what belongs to it.
Anti-Corruption — Dealing with Suspect Property — Knowledge or Reason to Believe
A person has reason to believe that property was acquired as a result of a corruption offence if that person has sufficient cause to believe that thing. Whether someone had reason to believe depends on whether a reasonable person in the accused's position would have suspected wrongdoing under similar circumstances. Knowledge or reason to believe may be inferred from the accused's official position, attendance at relevant events, awareness of government programmes and directives, and conduct inconsistent with lawful acquisition.
Witness Credibility — Contradictions and Inconsistencies
Not every inconsistency in witness testimony will result in rejection of that evidence. Only grave inconsistencies that are substantial, fundamental to the main issues, and create doubt in the mind of the court will ordinarily result in a witness's evidence being rejected. Minor inconsistencies regarding dates or sequence of events, especially where attributable to memory lapses from passage of time, will not have that effect unless the court considers they point to deliberate untruthfulness.
Cross-Examination — Failure to Challenge Evidence
An omission or neglect to challenge evidence in chief on a material or essential point by cross-examination leads to the inference that the evidence is accepted, subject to it being assailed as inherently incredible or probably untrue.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (12)

  • Ssekitoleko v Uganda (1967) EA 531
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 ALL ER 372
  • Abdu Ngobi v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1997)
  • Uganda v Dick Oiok (1992-1993) HCB 54
  • Shadrack Ngatia versus Republic (2018), eKLR, ACC Appeal No 27/2017
  • Kayinamura v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2022)
  • Serapio Tinkamalirwe v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1989)
  • David Chandi Jamwa v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2011)
  • Republic versus Ibrahim Adam and others, Suit No FT 2/2000 (unreported)
  • James Sawo-Abiri and another v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1990)
  • Geoffrey Kazinda v Uganda (Court of Appeal Consolidated Criminal Appeals No. 179 and 208 of 2020)
  • Ndwandwe versus Rex (2012) SZ SC 39

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Nandutu Agnes (Criminal Session Case No. 2 of 2023) [2026] UGHCACD 11 (8 April 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.