[2017] UGCA 139

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

### ELECTION PETITION APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2015

*(Arising From High Court Election Petition No. 007 of2016)*

**io TUBO** CHRISTINE NAKWANG. APPELLANT

#### **VERSUS**

#### **AKELLO ROSE LILLY .. RESPONDENT**

*[Appealfrom the Judgment and orders ofPion. Justice Billy Kainamura dated the 19 day ofAugust 2016]*

**15**

# **CORAM:** HON. **MR. JUSTICE RICHARD BUTEERA,JA HON. MR. JUSTICE KENNETH KAKURU,** JA

■RON. MR. JUSTICE ALFONSE C OWINY-DOLLO, JA

**25**

#### **²⁰ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

This appeal arises from the Judgment of Hon. Mr. Justice Billy Kainamura, in High Court (Soroti) *Election Petition No. 07 of 2016* dated 19th August 2016 in which the appellant's election as a woman member of Parliament for Kaabong District was annulled.

The brief facts leading to this appeal as far as we could ascertain from the Court record are as follows

During the national general election which was held on 18th day of February 2016, the appellant, the respondent and one

**'W**

Ms. Losike Anjella Lucky contested for the Kaabong District, $\mathsf{S}$ woman Member of Parliament seat. The Electoral Commission returned the appellant as the validly elected woman member of Parliament for Kaabong District with 19,460 votes. The respondent was declared to have obtained 19,344 votes, Ms. Losike Anjella Lucky was declared to have obtained 1,194 $10$ votes and 4.113 votes were declared invalid.

The appellant was declared the winner on 19^th February 2016 and her name was subsequently published in the Uganda Gazette as such on 3^rd March 2016.

- The respondent being dissatisfied with decision of the Electoral $15$ Commission filed a petition at the High Court of Uganda at Soroti challenging the results of the election alleging a number of irregularities, non-compliance with law and electoral offences. - The High Court found in favour of the respondent, allowed the $20$ petition, and set aside the election. The Court ordered that fresh elections be held in accordance with the law. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court the appellant filed this appeal on the following grounds:- - 1. The Learned trial judge erred in law and fact when $25$ he denied the Appellant a right to a fair hearing;

2. The Learned trial Judge erred in law and fact when he failed to properly evaluate all the evidence before him thereby erroneously coming to the following wrong Appellant had conclusions that the committed electoral offences to wit:

$\mathbf{2}$

- a) Bribery at Kathile Sub-County, Kathile Trading Centre. Namamutau. Nikwapicha Village, Nachukulu East and Morouetome. - b) Assault at Kathile Sub-County and Kalapata Sub-Countu. - The learned trial judge erred in law and fact when he $\mathbf{3.}$ found that the conduct of the alleged supporters of the appellant was contrary to Section 80 of the PEA and constituted an election offence under Part 12 of the PEA and erroneously attributed the same to the appellant. - The Learned Trial judge erred in law and fact when $\boldsymbol{4.}$ he found that the Respondent had failed to prove the 20 allegations of assault and bribery to the Court's satisfaction but nevertheless allowed the petition. - When this appeal came up for hearing, learned counsel, Joseph Kyazze, Richard Outek, Daniel Okalebo and Richard $25$ **Latigo** appeared for the appellant while learned Counsel **Caleb** Alaka, Alfred Okello Oryem, Bosco Okiror and Ochieng **Evans** appeared for the respondent.

Both parties were present.

The Appellant's case 30

> Mr. Kyazze the appellant's lead counsel preferred to argue the four grounds of appeal together.

Counsel submitted that the appellant had been denied a fair hearing at the High Court when the trial Judge admitted 24 affidavits of the respondent's witnesses on record whereas, in


$10$

$15$

$\mathsf{S}$

his earlier order he had allowed her to file only one extra affidavit. **5**

Further, that the learned trial Judge denied the appellant an opportunity to reply to the 24 affidavits that were filed out of time and without leave of Court. Learned Counsel contended that the trial Judge in his Judgment relied on those 24 affidavits in reaching the decision that he did, annulling the appellant's election.

**10**

V v-

**15**

**20**

**25**

**30**

Counsel submitted that the learned trial Judge relied on the impugned affidavits to arrive at the conclusion that there was bribery, assault, intimidation and a number of other irregularities and offences attributable to the appellant during the election.

It was submitted for the appellant that the Judge's decision referred to above constituted an error in law, the result of which was that the appellant was denied a fair hearing in contravention of *Article 44(c)* of the Constitution.

On the second ground learned Counsel submitted that the learned trial Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record and in some instances selectively evaluated the evidence and as a result arrived at the wrong conclusion that the allegations of bribery and assault had been proved against the appellant.

He argued that in arriving at the decision that he did the learned trial Judge in his Judgment relied only on the evidence of the petitioner now respondent ignoring the evidence of the appellant, that had been adduced in rebuttal.


Learned Counsel Mr. Latigo, argued the rest of grounds 2, 3 $\mathsf{S}$ and $4$ of appeal.

He submitted that the allegations of bribery against the appellant, were said to have been committed by one individual named Loiki Gabriel Paka on the same day at about the same time at three different places. He referred to the affidavits of $10$ Lomuria Betty, Lopiding Peter and Adomoi Simon Peter. Counsel contended that all the above named persons stated that Loiki was seen in their villages distributing money to voters at about 11:00 p.m. on $17^th$ February 2016 the eve of the general elections. He submitted, had the learned trial Judge $15$ properly evaluated the evidence he would have found that it was not possible for one person to commit the offences of bribery in three different villages on the same day at or about the same time.

Further, that the evidence relied upon by the trial Judge was so $20$ weak and could not have on its own been sufficient to prove the allegations of bribery. He contended that the Judge should have looked for other independent evidence in corroboration, which he did not. He referred to the decision of this Court in Hellen Adoa and Electoral Commission vs Alice Alaso $25$

- (Court of Appeal Election Petition No. 54 of 2016) for the proposition that failure to cross examine a witness does not mean that the facts alleged therein have been proved to the satisfaction of the Court. - Counsel also faulted the learned trial Judge for having $30$ accepted the evidence of one Lotyang Isaac, who swore an affidavit in support of the respondent, wherein he stated that at all material times he was an agent of the appellant.

$\mathsf{S}$

**10 15 ⁵** This witness, counsel submitted, stated that the appellant through her agent Loiki Gabriel was given an appointment letter together with a number of other people who were not individually named and money was given to them to facilitate their work as agents for the appellant. The witness, counsel stated, went on to depone that there were over 100 voters at that place called Morouetome who were bribed, given alcohol, a lamb was slaughtered for them and there was merry making. Counsel contended that the above did not constitute bribery at law, as the appellant was just giving out appointment letters to her own campaign agents to facilitate them in their work. Further that, the witnesses did not name a single voter who was bribed at that place or any person who was given money and was not the appellant's agent.

**1V**

\* *9. \**

**c**

**30**

**20 25** Counsel pointed out that whereas, Lotyang Isaac states that Loiki Gabriel was at Morouetome at 5 p.m. giving out appointment letters, bribing and slaughtering a lamb for voters, one Adupa Francis depones that he met the same person Loiki at 6. p.m on the same day and gave him a bribe at a trading centre in a different Parish. This, he argued could not have been true as one person could not have been in two places at the same time.

Counsel submitted that all in all there was insufficient evidence to prove the offence of bribery against the appellant and that had the learned trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence he would have found that the offence of bribery had not been proved. He asked this Court to re-evaluate the evidence and find so.


**15**

**20**

**5** In respect of the allegations of assault, counsel submitted that this too was not proved and the evidence adduced was contradicting and insufficient to prove the offence against the appellant.

He asked Court to allow the appeal.

# **¹⁰** Respondents yespo&se

Mr. Alaka for the respondent first dealt with the law regarding the duty of a first appellate Court and thereafter dealt with the burden and standard of proof in election petitions. We find no reason to reproduce his submissions as that law is well established and was not in issue.

In reply to ground one Mr. Alaka submitted that, the appellant had been granted a fair hearing. He rejected the appellant's submissions that the learned trial Judge had pre-maturely closed pleadings without having granted the appellant an opportunity to reply to the respondent's 24 affidavits that had been filed later.

Counsel submitted that the impugned affidavits were filed on 26th May 2016, and with the consensus of counsel for the appellant, were served upon them on 28th May 2016.

**25** He submitted further that on 31st of May 2016 when the matter came up for hearing the trial Judge did not reject the appellant's plea for more time to peruse and reply to the same.

**30**

That indeed the learned trial Judge allowed the appellant to rebut the allegations set out in the impugned affidavits while the Court proceedings were going on. Counsel further argued

**5** that the appellant's Counsel were able to file 12 supplementary affidavits which were served upon the respondent's Counsel on 1st June 2016.

*i*

**15**

**20**

**25**

**30**

**10** Learned Counsel submitted that it was the discretion of the trial Judge to make the directions that he did and this Court may not interfere with the discretion unless it has been showed to be clearly wrong and has resulted in a miscarriage ofjustice.

He further submitted that it was the consensus of counsel for both parties to cut short the cross examination and close their respective cases and file written legal arguments/submissions.

He also argued that all parties were granted an opportunity to cross examine any of the witnesses who had sworn affidavits including the 24 witnesses whose affidavits had been admitted by Court later. It was the respondent's case that, the appellant's counsel had declined to cross examine the witnesses although they had been granted an opportunity to do so by the Court.

It was also submitted for the respondent that the appellant was granted an opportunity by Court to file rebuttals, but they declined to use it.

In conclusion he submitted that the appellant was not denied a fair hearing as alleged in ground one of the appeal.

On the issue of bribery raised in ground two of appeal, counsel for the respondent submitted that the offence of bribery had been proved against the appellant. Further, that the Judge had properly evaluated the evidence before reaching the conclusion that he did.

*I* **Av** **S 10** In his evaluation of evidence, he argued, the learned trial Judge rejected eight allegations of bribery against the appellant allowing only those which were alleged to have taken place at Kathile Sub-county, Kathile Centre , Namamutau, Nikwapicha village, Nachukulu East and Morouetome among other places. The trial Judge too was alive to the law regarding the burden and standard of proof in election petitions and specifically in respect of allegations of bribery and he had correctly applied the law to the evidence before him as set out in his Judgment.

**r ■-**

**s**

**15 20** He again argued that in respect of the bribery alleged to have taken place at Kathile Sub-county Headquarters, evidence is provided by a number of eye witnesses, who proved that the money used to bribe the voters had been obtained from the appellant. Further, that this incident was not denied or rebutted by the appellant and as such the evidence remained uncontroverted.

He further submitted that the money was given to the voters with the intention of influencing them to vote in favour of the appellant and that proof was provided to show that the person who received the money were registered voters.

**25 30** He submitted that likewise, the respondent proved bribery allegations against the appellant which were stated to have taken place at Kathile Centre, Namamutau village, Nikwapicha village Nachukulu East and at Morouetome. He pointed out that one incident of bribery is sufficient to prove the offence, in this case the incidents of bribery that were proved were more than one, and as such this offence had been proved to the satisfaction of the Court. He asked Court to dismiss ground two of appeal.

**4^**

**5 10** In respect of ground 3 it was submitted by counsel that the allegations of assault occasioned by the supporters of the appellant against those of the respondent had been proved. In addition counsel submitted that the respondent had proved the allegations of violence and intimidation against the supporters of the respondent.

In view of the findings of the Judge on this ground which we shall revert to shortly we find no reason to reproduce counsel's

## **Resolution of grounds of appeal**

detailed arguments in this regard.

- **15 20** This being a first appeal, this Court is required to re-evaluate the evidence adduced at the trial and make its own inferences of law and fact. See: *Rule 30 (2)* of the Rules of this Court. *Kifamunte Henry* **Vs** *Uganda: Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997, Bogere Moses Vs Uganda Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. ¹ of 1997* and *Fr. Narcenslo Begwrdsa &* - *Others vs Eric Tibebaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002).*

We shall proceed to do so.

**25** The complaint under ground one of appeal relates to denial by the Court of a fair hearing to the appellant. It is contended for the appellant that the respondent was granted leave by the Court at the trial to file one crucial affidavit. However, she used that opportunity to file 23 other affidavits without leave of Court on validation of the order of Court. These affidavits were said to have been served upon

**4\*1**

**5** the appellant on 28th May 2016 beyond the time line that had been fixed by the Court which was 26th May 2016.

I

**10**

hearing. The appellants further contended that upon the filing of the said affidavits, or so soon thereafter, the Court closed pleadings, instructed counsel to file written arguments and set down the petition for judgment. This, counsel argued, was done without granting any opportunity to the appellant to rebut the said affidavits and or cross examine the deponents. It is the appellant's case that as a result of the above facts she was denied a fair so

**15 20** We have carefully looked at the evidence on record and the Judgment of the lower Court. It is conceded by the respondent that indeed the Court allowed on record 24 affidavits which she had filed after the closure of pleadings. It is also conceded that the Court had only allowed the respondent to file one extra affidavit. For the respondent it is contended that, the appellant was availed an opportunity to file rebuttals and or cross examine the deponents of those 24 affidavits which she declined to take, therefore no prejudice was caused.

**25** We are constrained to reproduce parts of the Court record of proceeding in order for all to appreciate what transpired during the trial on 31st May 2016 at 3: 21 p.m. the record states:-

## *"Matier coming up for scheduling, before I proceed I give chance to Isodo he has something to say*

u

*Isodo: My Lord the other day when we were before you, counsel for the petitioner requested for time to file one affidavit, your honor you allowed that and surprisingly they filed and served 24 affidavits.*

**io** *Court: 24 ?*

**5**

**15**

**20**

*Isodo: 24 My Lord and we were served on Saturday this has put us on balance, we are very uncomfortable with it and in interest of our client lets proceed, we want* to *seek court's guidance on this; maybe we misheard ¹ affidavit in 24 or something like that so that we know how to proceed.*

*Court: when were you served?*

## *Isodo: Saturday*

At page 14 of the record of proceedings it states from;-

**25 30** *"Court: today is Monday. You have had time to look at these affidavit and to discuss with your client; you must have in your mind how you are going to rebut, when am addressing Mr. Isodo am doing the same to* Mr. *Laldgo, you must have a plan for purpose of defending your client.*

Latigo: for me the concern is that these affidavit as well touch my client and the responsible person swearing the affidavit unfortunately who could be in Kaboong, is instead in Kampala but she is coming tomorrow. Although I was prepared for the scheduling.

Isodo: pray for one week

Court: I specifically set aside three days for your petition and you are telling me

lsodo; My Lord 3 days, 15

> Court: but you see with or without these affidavits each one of you should have already have identified people for cross examining on the basis of the fact plot of action, have you done that?"

On Monday 1^st June 2016 the record of proceedings states:-

"This matter is coming for further hearing. We did make some consultation amongst ourselves as counsels during lunch on issue of cross examination of further witnesses in this matter is concerned, my lord the consensus we have reached is that since all the material needed for the inquiry in his matter is already before you. Instead of further cross examination of all the other Deponents we had wanted we abandon all that but we now proceed on the basis and we see how we can get a schedule of submissions.

$\mathsf{S}$

$10$

$20$

*My Lord that has been the consensus we have had as all the counsel in this matter. May be my colleagues can chip in a word or two.*

*Court: yes I want to herfrom each party.*

*Dan Okalebo: my Lord for the record Dan Okalebo for 1st respondent, My Lord it is true we have had a brief interactions with both counsels and the position is as stated we don't intend to object to that consensus.*

**15**

**10**

**r**

**5**

## *Court: Ok , 2nd respondent*

**20 25** It appears to us from the above excerpts that all the parties agreed to close the pleadings, abandon cross examination if any, and proceed with submission on 1st June 2016. The trial Judge's position had been that the appellant would proceed to file affidavits in rebuttal during the course of the trial and the parties would be availed an opportunity to cross examine witnesses in respect of which later affidavits had been filed. This did not happen as counsel for the parties decided to shorten the process and to proceed with the filing of written submissions.

With all due respect to the learned trial Judge we find that his decision to proceed with the trial without according sufficient time to the appellant to file affidavits in rebuttal and to decide whether

**14**

**5** or not to cross examine any of the witnesses who had deponed to the late affidavits was prejudicial to the appellant.

Every litigant and his/her counsel ought to know the whole case before they can adequately prepare for a trial. In this particular case it appears that the lawyers on both side agreed to cut short the proceedings at the prompting of the learned trial Judge who felt constrained by time.

**10**

**3 ?**

**15**

In our considered view, the learned trial Judge should at this point have expunged from the record the 24 affidavits that had been filed late and without leave of Court. We say so because the appellant had not been granted opportunity to reply to them and to cross examine the witnesses, at the closure of the trial. The trial Judge went ahead to rely on some of them in his Judgment. We find that this was an error as it was prejudicial to the appellant.

- **20** We find merit in this ground only to that extent that the trial Judge did not expunge from the Court record the 24 affidavits referred to above and went ahead to rely on some of them. This finding however does not extend to the rest of the hearing. Indeed our finding on ground one of appeal does not impact on the rest of the grounds. - **25** Counsel for the appellant Mr. Kyazze submitted that the appellant was prejudiced when the learned trial Judge allowed the 24 impugned affidavits to remain on record and when he went ahead to rely on them in reaching the decision that he did.

**5 10** We have carefully scrutinised the record. We have found that, of the 24 impugned affidavits only three are mentioned in the Judgment. Those mentioned are the affidavits of Lomuria Betty dated 20th May 2016, Logwee Jino dated 13th May 2016 and Lemu Joseph dated 13th May 2016. These affidavits were only mentioned while the trial Judge was dealing with the issue of assault and intimidation.

**15 20** On this issue although the learned trial Judge found that the conduct of the appellant's supporters was contrary to *Section* 80 of Parliamentary Elections Act, and constituted an electoral offence, he went to state that, the respondent herein had failed to prove that the offences of assault, intimidation and illegal use of Government resources to the required standard. The Judge did not make any positive finding on this issue which he dismissed. In this regard therefore, failure to expunge the 24 impugned affidavits from the record had no bearing on the final outcome of the petition. We find that the error did not vitiate the whole trial and no impact on its outcome.

Ground one therefore partially succeeds.

**X'**

**25**

In the resolution of ground one, we have also resolved ground three of appeal. Our finding on ground one as already set out above is that the trial Judge's finding in respect of allegations of assault intimidation and improper use of government vehicles had not been proved to the satisfaction of the Court. We find that ground 3 is misconceived this issue having been resolved in favour of the **5** appellant at the High Court could not again form a ground of appeal. We therefore dismiss it.

Ground 2 is in respect of bribery. Counsel faults the learned trial for having reached a wrong conclusion that the offence of bribery had been proved, he contends that this bribery had not been proved

**10** to the required standard.

**•>**

■<

**15**

**25**

Almost all the witnesses who deponed affidavits in support of the respondent were not cross examined. Their testimonies remained largely unchallenged. The affidavits in rebuttal were almost without exception denials. The Judge was left with no choice. Either he had to believe the respondent's witnesses or those of the appellant. Upon evaluation of the evidence he found that the respondent had proved the offences of bribery committed at various places which were attributable to the appellant.

**20** The question for us to determine is whether or not the trial the Judge properly evaluated the evidence before him and if so whether he was justified when he concluded that the offence of bribery had been proved to the required standard.

In his Judgment the learned trial Judge set out the law regarding the offence of bribery in electoral process, that is *Section 68(1)* and *(4)* PEA. He went ahead to analyse the evidence set out by the respondent to prove the allegation of briery allegedly committed by various person at 14 different locations, on the 17th of February

**5** 2016 the eve of the elections and 18th February 2016, the election day itself.

He thereafter applied the facts he had set out, to the applicable law. He found that the allegations of bribery which were alleged to have been committed at Kathile West had not been proved and he stated why.

He found that the allegations of bribery at Kathile Trading Centre and Namamutau village had been proved as alleged.

**15** The bribery incident at Narube was not proved to the satisfaction of the Court. However, the Judge believed the evidence of Adomoi Simon Peter in respect of the allegations of bribery at Nachukulu East and evidence of Lotyang in respect of the bribery at Morouetome.

He dismissed the allegations of bribery at Lemugate polling Station and Kathile Primary school.

- **20** Kathile sub-county Headquarters, the allegation of bribery was set out in the affidavit of Keem Joseline as follows - *3. That on the 16th day of February 2016, as I was returning from Nursery bed near Kathile sub county headquarters, I met a convoy of Tubo Christine Nakwang heading to Narube for rally.*

**25**

**h**

- 4. That Tubo Christine Nakwang was seated in the white car driven by Loki Gabriel Kider followed by many *motorcycles.* - 5. That I was in the company of Nakiru Christine, Nakiru Margret and others from other villages from watering the plants. - 6. THAT when they approached us Nakwang and the group greeted us and I was given Ug. Shs 5,000 by Nakwang agent Moru Michael Sauti to share with my colleagues and they asked us to vote Tubo Christine Nakwang on the 18^th February 2016.

This evidence remained unchallenged and the Judge believed it.

## Kathile Trading Centre.

The evidence in respect of bribery alleged to have taken place here was provided by Adupa Francis in his affidavit dated $1^{st}$ April 2016. $20$ He was a registered voter at Kathile primary school polling station. He avers that he was approached by Loiki Gabriel and offered shs.5,000/ $=$ to vote for the respondent.

He states:-

$\mathsf{S}$

$10$

4. THAT on the 17^th February 2016 at round 6:00 pm while $25$ at Kathile trading Centre, Loiki Gabriel also known as Kider in the company of Lochan Daniel Loran, Koryang, Losilo Peter also known Waterja whom I know as ardent supporters and agents of the $1$ ^st respondent approached

$8c$

*me and in the process was given 5000/= five thousand Uganda shilling and one bottle of beer (eagle lager brand) by Loiki Gabriel Kider an agent of the 1st Respondent who said (Lopuaitobong) (meaning come back) vote the pot that is the symbol of Tube Christine Nakwang the 1st Respondent.*

*5. THAT I finished taking the beer and I went to look for Lokodo Martin, Napila Joseph and Lokosowa Peter upon meeting them, I informed them that Loiki Gabriel also Known as Kider gave me 5000/= one note in orderfor us to vote for the 1st Respondent and with the money* I *bought drinksforthem.*

Loiki Gabriel denied the above allegations, when he stated in his reply to the above allegations as follows:-

9. *The allegations contained in the petition and affidavits of Lokolinyang Pasquale and Adupa Francis are false since I do not know any of them and I have never distributed kick waragi or money or any items to voters in order to vote the 1st Respondent.*

The above reply is simply a general denial and the trial Judge gave valid reason why he rejected it. We find no reason to fault him.

**20**

**30**

**15**

**20**

**25**

**10**

## **⁵** Bribery at Namamutau village

The evidence of Lopiding Peter in his affidavit was not rebutted at all. He states in paragraph 4 as follows

- *me 4. THAT on the 17th day of February 2016 I was in Namamutau Village when one Loiki Gabriel Kider, the agent and supporter of Tubo Christine Nakwang came at around 11:00 pm and he handed over to me Ug. Shs. 20,000/=which was in 4 denomination of 5,000/- asking to vote and convince other people to vote for Tubo Christine Nakwang the next day on 18th February, 2016.* - *5. That the next day on 18th February 2016 in the morning when Lokiru Paul came, I reported to him that I had been bribed in the night by Loiki Gabriel Kider to vote for Tubo Christine Nakwang.*

**20**

**15**

**10**

r (

- This evidence was unchallenged as no rebuttal was filed by the appellant. We find that the learned trial Judge was justified when he believed it. - **25** The evidence in respect of bribery at Nakwapicha village was provided by Lomuria Betty and this too was not rebutted.

Having looked at all the evidence above, and at the evidence in respect of alleged bribery at other places, that is Nachukulu East

- **5** and Morouetome, we find no reason to fault the Judge on his evaluation of evidence and the conclusion he reached. - In *Kikulukunya Faisal vs Muwanga Kivttmbi Mohammed, Court of Appeal Election Petition Appeal No. 44 of 2011,* this Court held as follows at page 14 of itsjudgment:- - **10** *"The well known principle is that there is no specific number of witnesses required to prove a given fact. Even one witness can prove a case as long as he or she is credible."*

**15** In *Col. Kizza Eesigye vs lioweri Kaguta Museveni &> Another Presidential Election Petition Appeal No.l of 2001,* the Supreme Court by majority agreed that:-

> *"Court does not require a multiplicity of incidents of bribery to annul an election* (Pei- ODER JSC).

**20** We are satisfied that the Judge properly evaluated the evidence and came to the correct conclusion that the offence of bribery alleged to have been committed at Kathile sub-county, Kathile Trading Centre, Namamutau, Nikwapicha village, Nachukulu and Morouetome had been proved to the required standard.

We have found no reason to fault his decision and we uphold it.

**²⁵** Ground 3 of appeal is dismissed.

fr


4 The fourth ground of appeal is misconceived. We have already dealt with it in the resolution of the first three grounds. We accordingly dismiss it.

In the result this appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. We therefore uphold the orders made by the lower Court.

Dated at Kampala this day of **.•JJ/I.jU** 2017.

MON. JUSTICE RICHARD BUTEERA **JUSTICE OF APPEAL**

.....................................................................

HON. KENNETH KAKURU **JUSTICE OF APPEAL**

MON. ALFONSE C OWINY- DOLLC **JUSTICE OF APPEAL**

**23**

**15**

**20**

**25**

**5**

**?■ st** • S, ^&lt;