[2012] UGSC 4

[2012] UGSC 4

The Supreme Court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on appeal or that he would suffer irreparable injury if the stay was not granted. The offences with which the applicant was charged—causing financial loss and illicit enrichment—were criminal offences at the time of the alleged acts under the repealed Penal Code Act, and the Anti Corruption Act was a reenactment rather than a substantive change. The difference in penalties was not material to the constitutional issues raised. The Constitutional Court's reasoning that the relevant constitutional protections were not absolute and that the applicant's rights were not violated was upheld. The balance of...

Citation
[2012] UGSC 4
Parties
Applicant: Akankwasa Damian; Respondent: Uganda
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
26 April 201226 April 201225 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
applications dismissed
Judges
Odoki, CJ
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Illicit Enrichment, Causing Financial Loss, Retrospective Criminal Law, Right to Property, Right to Fair Trial
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Stay of Execution Illicit Enrichment Causing Financial Loss Retrospective Criminal Law Right to Property Right to Fair Trial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akankwasa Damian

Applicant

Uganda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the Constitutional Court's orders pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the offences charged under the Anti Corruption Act for acts committed before its enactment violate Articles 28(7), 28(12), and 26(1) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether Section 31 of the Anti Corruption Act is inconsistent with the constitutional right to property and privacy.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on appeal or that he would suffer irreparable injury if the stay was not granted. The offences with which the applicant was charged—causing financial loss and illicit enrichment—were criminal offences at the time of the alleged acts under the repealed Penal Code Act, and the Anti Corruption Act was a reenactment rather than a substantive change. The difference in penalties was not material to the constitutional issues raised. The Constitutional Court's reasoning that the relevant constitutional protections were not absolute and that the applicant's rights were not violated was upheld. The balance of...

Court Disposition

applications dismissed

Orders

  • Applications for interim orders of stay of execution pending hearing of the main applications for stay of execution are dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.