[2011] UGCC 8

[2011] UGCC 8

The court held that the acts allegedly committed by the applicant between August 2007 and February 2008 constituted the criminal offence of causing financial loss under section 269 of the Penal Code Act, which was in force at the time. Section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act is a re-enactment of section 269, with the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] UGCC 8
Parties
Applicant: Damian Akankwasa; Respondent: Uganda
Court
Constitutional Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Constitutional Petition No. 4 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Reference / Ruling
Outcome
reference dismissed
Legal Topics
Retroactive Criminal Liability, Statutory Repeal and Reenactment, Interpretation of Criminal Offence, Constitutional Rights of Accused
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Retroactive Criminal Liability Statutory Repeal and Reenactment Interpretation of Criminal Offence Constitutional Rights of Accused

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Damian Akankwasa

Applicant

Uganda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Reference / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether charging and prosecuting the accused under section 20(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No.6/09 for offences allegedly committed between August 2007 and February 2008 is inconsistent with Articles 28(7) and (12) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the re-enactment of the offence under the Anti-Corruption Act constitutes a continuation of the former offence under the Penal Code Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the acts allegedly committed by the applicant between August 2007 and February 2008 constituted the criminal offence of causing financial loss under section 269 of the Penal Code Act, which was in force at the time. Section 20 of the Anti-Corruption Act is a re-enactment of section 269, with the only material difference being the enhancement of the sentence. The existence of a prescribed punishment at the time of the alleged acts satisfies the requirements of Articles 28(7) and (12) of the Constitution. Therefore, charging the applicant under the Anti-Corruption Act for acts committed before its enactment is not inconsistent with the Constitution, as the acts were...

Court Disposition

reference dismissed

Orders

  • The reference is dismissed with costs.
  • The record of the lower court is returned with the direction that the trial magistrate should proceed with the trial of the applicant forthwith.