Wakilii

Uganda v Sale Idhi and Others (Criminal Appeal 5 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCACD 17 · 2025 Appeal Allowed — Convictions Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal by the State against acquittal of three respondents on charges of causing financial loss, theft, and conspiracy to defraud
Decision
All three respondents convicted on various counts; matter remitted to trial court for sentencing

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 allowed the State's appeal against acquittal, holding that the Chief Finance Officer's statutory duty to supervise and verify payments established liability for causing financial loss when irregular payments totalling UGX 175,853,929 were made to companies that rendered no services. The court found that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, as directors and signatories of the recipient companies, committed theft when they withdrew funds deposited without claim of right, and that all three respondents conspired to defraud by acting in concert to facilitate the fraudulent payments. Convictions were entered and the matter remitted for sentencing.

Outcome

All three respondents convicted on various counts; matter remitted to trial court for sentencing

Facts

Between February 2021 and the trial, five accused persons were charged with corruption-related offences arising from irregular payments made by Butebo District Local Government in June 2019. Four companies—Zedkol Financial Services, Ligation International, Otap Limited, and Samix Uganda Limited—were fraudulently added to the district payroll and paid a total of UGX 175,853,929 despite rendering no services. Sale Idhi was Chief Finance Officer, responsible for supervising payments. Osire Ezekiel and Otukol Sam (a Member of Parliament) were directors and signatories of three of the four companies. Ongom Charles Dominic, an accountant at the Ministry of Finance, testified that Otukol initiated the scheme by requesting supplier numbers for the companies. The companies received the funds in June 2019, and the directors immediately withdrew large sums. The trial magistrate acquitted the three respondents but ordered refunds. The State appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial magistrate erred in disregarding prosecution evidence on the 1st Respondent's role in supervising and ensuring irregular payments for fictitious services, thereby erroneously acquitting him of causing financial loss.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to properly evaluate evidence regarding the offences of theft, thereby wrongly acquitting the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate erred in disregarding prosecution evidence and relying on the 3rd Respondent's position as a Member of Parliament to acquit him of theft and conspiracy to defraud.
  4. Whether the trial magistrate erred in failing to evaluate evidence regarding the offence of conspiracy to defraud, thereby erroneously acquitting all three Respondents.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed on all grounds.
  • Acquittal of all respondents set aside.
  • Sale Idhi convicted of Causing Financial Loss contrary to section 20(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009 in counts 1, 4, 7 and 10.
  • Osire Ezekiel convicted of Theft contrary to sections 254 and 261 of the Penal Code Act in counts 9 and 12.
  • Otukol Sam a.k.a Okello Sam convicted of Theft contrary to sections 254 and 261 of the Penal Code Act in count 3.
  • Sale Idhi, Osire Ezekiel and Otukol Sam convicted of Conspiracy to Defraud contrary to section 309 of the Penal Code Act.
  • File remitted to the trial court to hear the convicts on sentence.

Rules and key headnotes

Causing Financial Loss — Chief Finance Officer's Statutory Duty — Supervisory Liability
A Chief Finance Officer who fails to supervise expenditures and verify payments as required by the Local Government (Financial and Accounting) Regulations commits the offence of causing financial loss under section 20(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009 where irregular payments are made, even if the CFO does not directly manipulate the payment system, because the statutory duty to prevent fraud through frequent checks imposes criminal liability for acts that would constitute negligence under civil law.
Causing Financial Loss — Knowledge Element — Inference from Circumstances
In the context of section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009, knowledge that an act or omission will cause financial loss may be inferred from circumstances where a reasonable person would have concluded that the act or omission is likely to lead to financial loss; having facts from which such a conclusion could be drawn is sufficient to establish the ingredient of knowledge.
Causing Financial Loss — Definition of Loss — Temporary Deprivation
Loss within the meaning of the offence of causing financial loss includes temporary deprivation of funds and the inability to use or benefit from those funds during the period of dispossession; the fact that money may be recoverable does not extinguish the loss already occasioned by the unlawful transfer.
Theft — Asportation — Transfer to Bank Account
The element of asportation in the offence of theft is satisfied where money is transferred from a government account to private bank accounts of companies; the physical movement of funds from one account to another constitutes carrying away of property within the meaning of sections 254 and 261 of the Penal Code Act.
Theft — Intent to Refund — No Defence
A person who takes money belonging to another without consent and converts it to their own use commits the offence of theft even if they intend to refund the money afterwards; return or reimbursement of stolen money does not absolve culpability for theft.
Accomplice Evidence — Corroboration Requirement — Material Circumstances
Where an accomplice gives evidence for the prosecution, the court must warn itself that it is dangerous to convict on such evidence unless corroborated; corroboration need not extend to every aspect of the accomplice's testimony—it is sufficient if a key aspect connecting the accused to the crime is corroborated, as corroboration of the part is corroboration of the whole.
Conspiracy to Defraud — Agreement Inferred from Conduct — Common Purpose
In an offence of conspiracy to defraud, there will rarely be an actual written agreement laying out each party's role; the agreement can be deduced from the conduct of the parties which shows an intention to achieve a common purpose, and it is not necessary that roles be stipulated before commencement of the scheme.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (13)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • John Kashaka Muhanguzi and 5 Others v Uganda (Court of Appeal Consolidated Appeal Nos. 723, 734, 735 & 742 of 2014)
  • David Chandi Jamwa v Uganda (Court of Appeal No. 77 of 2011)
  • Mureeba v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2003)
  • Kazibwe Kassim v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2003)
  • Uganda v Remo Levy Samson (High Court Criminal Session No. 14 of 2013)
  • Uganda v Kiwanuka and Others (Criminal Session Case No. 27 of 2013)
  • Uganda v Thomas Kwoyelo (High Court Criminal Session No. 2 of 2010)
  • Nassolo v. Uganda [2003] EA 181
  • Ayor and another v. Uganda [1968] 303
  • Rwalinda John v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2015)
  • R. v. Baskerville (1916) 2 KB 658
  • Uganda v Tndyebwa (Criminal Case No. 8 of 2018)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Sale Idhi and Others (Criminal Appeal 5 of 2025) [2025] UGHCACD 17 (28 August 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.