[2011] UGHC 137

[2011] UGHC 137

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused solicited Shs. 100,000,000 as alleged in Count I, as the only direct evidence was from the complainant and there was insufficient corroboration. On Count II, the court found that the accused, a public official, received...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] UGHC 137
Parties
Applicant: Uganda; Respondent: Imere Deo
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
CR.Sc 72 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment and Sentence
Outcome
Convicted on count II (receipt of gratification); acquitted on counts I (solicitation) and III (abuse of office).
Judges
Mugamba, J
Legal Topics
Corruption Offences, Abuse of Office, Tax Evasion, Public Officer Misconduct
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Tax Law Corruption Offences Abuse of Office Tax Evasion Public Officer Misconduct

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uganda

Applicant

Imere Deo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judgment and Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the accused solicited a bribe of Shs. 100,000,000 in exchange for reducing tax liability of Lubmarks Investments Ltd.
  2. 2 Whether the accused received a gratification of Shs. 5,000,000 as a public official for the benefit of himself in exchange for reducing tax liability.
  3. 3 Whether the accused committed abuse of office by arbitrarily reducing the tax liability of Lubmarks Investments Ltd, prejudicial to the interests of Uganda Revenue Authority.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused solicited Shs. 100,000,000 as alleged in Count I, as the only direct evidence was from the complainant and there was insufficient corroboration. On Count II, the court found that the accused, a public official, received Shs. 5,000,000 from the complainant in a sting operation, and the evidence, including the recovery of marked money and the accused's own extra-judicial statement, proved the offence of receipt of gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The accused's defence that he was coerced was rejected as implausible. On Count III, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove abuse of...

Court Disposition

Convicted on count II (receipt of gratification); acquitted on counts I (solicitation) and III (abuse of office).

Orders

  • Accused acquitted on count I (solicitation of gratification).
  • Accused convicted on count II (receipt of gratification).