Shs 2.3 billion. That is what a Ugandan High Court ordered MTN Uganda to pay Richard Mwami, a former employee, for malicious prosecution. Six days after the June 26 judgment, the company filed a notice of appeal.
The papers, filed July 2 by MTN’s lawyers at Kampala Associated Advocates, also asked for certified copies of the court record. Acting Justice Isaac Bonny Teko had found MTN liable over the 2012 mobile money fraud case. The award breaks down as Shs 1.809 billion in special damages, Shs 400 million in general damages and Shs 100 million in exemplary damages, plus interest and costs.
The judge concluded MTN was the “moving force” behind the criminal proceedings against Mwami, even though the company’s own forensic audit reportedly did not implicate him. He found MTN had done more than report suspected fraud: it instigated and procured the prosecution. The Attorney General was struck out of the suit because the claim against the government was filed outside the statutory limitation period.
MTN’s argument
After the ruling, MTN said: “We are studying the judgment carefully with our legal advisors and are considering all available options, including an appeal. MTN Uganda remains committed to the highest standards of corporate governance and to conducting its business in accordance with the law.”
According to sources familiar with the company’s legal position, the appeal will mainly attack the finding that MTN was legally responsible for the prosecution. The company holds that when it found suspected fraud involving billions of shillings on its mobile money platform, it met its duty by reporting to the Uganda Police Force. From there, investigating, weighing evidence, sanctioning charges and prosecuting became the state’s job, through the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose office has independent powers.
What lawyers say
Legal experts who spoke to The Ankole Times expect that point to be the center of the appeal. “In Uganda, criminal proceedings are prosecuted by the State,” one senior lawyer said, noting that cases are filed in the name of the Republic, as in “Uganda versus…”, not in the name of the complainant. Complainants give information, the experts argued, but the police and ultimately the DPP decide whether to charge.
Several lawyers called the ruling a potentially far-reaching precedent. They warned that complainants, whether companies, financial institutions or ordinary citizens, could face civil liability even after independent investigations and prosecutorial decisions. “The Court of Appeal now has an opportunity to clarify where the legal line should be drawn between reporting suspected criminal conduct and being held liable for malicious prosecution,” another expert said. They stressed this was not criticism of the High Court.
The notice of appeal confirms MTN will take the case to the Court of Appeal.
