MTN Uganda has formally challenged a High Court ruling that ordered the telecommunications company to pay more than 2.3 billion shillings (approximately $630,000) to a former employee for malicious prosecution, filing a notice of appeal on July 2. The legal challenge comes just six days after Acting Justice Isaac Bonny Teko issued the June 26 judgment against the firm, a rapid escalation that underscores the high stakes for one of Uganda’s largest corporations.
The June 26 decision found MTN Uganda liable for maliciously prosecuting Richard Mwami, a former employee, in connection with a 2012 mobile money fraud case. The court awarded Mwami 1.809 billion shillings in special damages, 400 million shillings in general damages, and 100 million shillings in exemplary damages, plus interest and legal costs.
In his ruling, Justice Teko concluded that MTN had been the “moving force” behind the criminal proceedings brought against Mwami—even though the company’s own forensic audit reportedly did not implicate him in the suspected fraud. The case revolves around events that date back more than a decade. MTN Uganda, a subsidiary of the multinational MTN Group, is the largest mobile network provider in the country, serving millions of customers with cellular services and digital financial tools.
In 2009, the company introduced Mobile Money, a telephone-based banking product that allows users to transfer funds and conduct financial transactions without traditional bank accounts. By 2015, this service had captured a dominant share of Uganda’s mobile money market, and MTN later expanded its offerings to include microloan and savings products through partnerships with financial institutions.
It was within this fast-growing mobile money ecosystem that the alleged fraud occurred in 2012. MTN reported the suspected theft of billions of shillings from its platform to the Uganda Police Force, and the subsequent investigation and prosecution led to charges against Mwami. The former employee maintained his innocence, and the forensic audit commissioned by MTN itself reportedly found no evidence implicating him.
Nonetheless, criminal proceedings moved forward, ultimately resulting in the malicious prosecution finding.
MTN’s Legal Argument: Reporting vs. Prosecuting
MTN’s notice of appeal, prepared by its lawyers at Kampala Associated Advocates, argues that the judgment raises fundamental legal questions about the roles of private complainants, investigators, and prosecutors within Uganda’s criminal justice system. According to sources familiar with the company’s legal position, MTN contends that once it discovered the suspected fraud, it fulfilled its legal duty by reporting the matter to the police for investigation.
The company maintains that after that point, the investigation, assessment of evidence, sanctioning of charges, and prosecution of the suspect became the constitutional responsibility of the state, exercised through the independent authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Sources close to the company’s legal strategy indicate that the appeal will primarily challenge the finding that MTN was legally responsible for Mwami’s prosecution.
The company is now seeking certified copies of the court record, a standard step in preparing the full appeal. The central question, as framed by MTN, is whether a private company that reports suspected criminal activity to law enforcement can be held liable for the subsequent decisions made by state prosecutors and investigators—an issue with far-reaching implications for corporate conduct in Uganda.
Case Could Set Precedent for Corporate Reporting in Uganda
The significance of this case extends beyond the parties involved. MTN Uganda operates in a heavily regulated sector where corporate actions often intersect with state law. In 2015, for example, the company disconnected a large number of customers to comply with government SIM card registration requirements, illustrating the tight regulatory environment in which it functions.
The outcome of this appeal may clarify whether a company remains liable for criminal charges after referring a case to the police, a precedent that would affect how all large corporations in Uganda handle internal fraud and report crimes to authorities. The judgment against MTN also highlights the legal boundary between private corporate reporting and state prosecution.
If the appeal succeeds, it could reinforce the principle that once a company reports a suspected crime to law enforcement, the responsibility for prosecution shifts entirely to the state. If the appeal fails, it could signal that companies must exercise greater caution in how they present evidence and interact with prosecutors, potentially altering the dynamics of corporate crime reporting across the country. As MTN Uganda pursues its appeal, the case continues to draw attention from legal observers and the business community alike.
The company is the largest mobile network provider in Uganda and a major player in the country’s digital financial ecosystem, and the outcome of this litigation could shape corporate legal risk for years to come. The court has not yet set a date for hearing the appeal, which is expected to be argued before Uganda’s Court of Appeal.
