Inspectorate of Government v Muwonge (LCT Application 9 of 2022) [2022] UGLCT 1 (8 November 2022)

Full Case Text

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE LEADERSHIP CODE TRIBUNAL OF UGANDA AT KA,IAPALA IN THE MAfiER OF THE LEADERSHIP CODE ACT 2OO2 LCT APPLICATION NO. OO9/2022

INSPECTORATE OF GOVERNMENT ;.'.'.';.'.'r.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' A P P L I CA N T VERSUS

TOM MUWONGE RESPONDENT

- CORAM: 1 Hon. Dr. Roselyn Karugonjo-Segawa, Chairperson - Hon. Asuman Kiyingi, Deputy Chairperson 2 - Hon. Didas Bakunzi Mufasha, Member 3

# DECTSTON

# lntroduction

- 1 This apptication was brought by the Appticant against the Respondent under S.3 Aof the Leadership Code Act 2002 (LCA) and Rule 9(1)of the Leadership code Tribunal (Practice & Procedure Rutes (2021) atteging abuse of pubtic property. The appticant sought dectarations and orders that: - (i) The Respondent abused pubtic property entrusted to his care and therefore breached section 128 (1), (2) and (3) of the LCA. - (ii) The Respondent reimburses UGX 4,000,000/= to Government being the estimated assessed cost of repair of the Motor Vehicle damaged or abused. - (iii) The Respondent be warned or cautioned for abuse of pubtic property as provided under section 128 (4) (c) of the LCA. - The Appticant is a constitutional body mandated to enforce the Leadership code of conduct, investigates breaches of the code and prosecutes them before the Leadership Code Tribunat. The Respondent is the Chairperson Local CounciI lll/Mayor of Kasangati Town Council, Wakiso district. 2.

Q. KC

Page 1 of 5

\$t \\ dLz

## Brief Facts

- 3 The Appticant's case is that on 7th January 2072 the Respondent gave Kasangati Town CounciI motor vehicte Reg. No. LG 00039-10G lsuzu Doubte Cabin to Mr. lsa Lute who had no vatid driving permit and is not an emptoyee of Kasangati Town Council. lsa Lute drove the said vehicte and subsequentty got involved in an accident at Masanafu Northern Bypass, in which the vehicle was damaged. The Appticant ctaimed this was abuse of pubtic property and a breach by the Respondent contrary to section 128 of the LCA. - The Respondent disputed the Appticant's attegations. According to the Respondent the motor vehicle in question was a pool vehicte and the onty one for Kasanagti Town counciI which was used by him and other officers. That on the day in question when the vehicte got invotved in an accident it was not in the Respondent's possession or controt. That it had been passed on to a one Senkeezi Richard, Treasurer/Head of the Finance Department Kasangati Town Council who was using it. That the Respondent onty asked Lule to pass on keys for the vehicte to Mr. Senkeezi but did not ask or authorize him to drive the said vehicte. Consequentty, he was not party to what transpired between Mr. Senkeezi and Lute that culminated in the accident. That the accident was minor and the Respondent had repaired the vehicle. The Respondent presented photographs of the vehicte which he ctaimed were taken immediately after the accident had occurred and after the repairs. 4

#### Representation

The Appticant was represented by Mr. James Jemba from the Inspectorate of Government white the Respondent was represented by Mr. Kasibante Leonard from Rwakafuzi & Company Advocates. 5

RKS Page 2 of 6

## Backqround

- 6. At the Scheduting Conference on 19 October 2022 the Appticant and Respondent with the guidance of the Tribunal compared notes and agreed on a number of issues. - Both parties agreed that the vehicte Reg. No. LG 00039-10G was not in the possession or control of the Respondent at the time of the accident. Furthermore, that investigations by the Appticant had not conctusivety estabtished that the Respondent had authorized lsa Lute to drive the vehicte on the fateful day. 7 - Both the Appticant and Respondent, however, agreed that it was wrong for the Respondent to have authorized lsa Lute a non-emptoyee, to handte and transmit car keys for the Kasangati Town CounciI vehicte. The Appticant and Respondent concurred after a physica[ inspection that the vehicte in question had been futly repaired by the Respondent and no ctaim remained for making good the loss or damage occasioned. 8 - The Respondent was remorseful and apologetic and prayed for lenience. He regretted having contributed to the abuse of pubtic property by handing over keys to an unauthorized person who unlawfulty used the vehicte and caused an accident. 9 - 10. Both the Appticant and Respondent agreed that onty a caution woutd be appropriate in the circumstances.

#### lssue

11. The only issue for determination by the Tribuna[ was whether the setttement agreed by the parties met the requirements of the LCA.

RK(

Page 3 of 5

# Applicabte law

12. S.128 of the LCA provides:

# Abuse of public property

- 1. A leader or a public officer sholl protect and preserve public property under his or her personal use and shall not use such property or ollow its use for any other purpose other than the authorized purpose. - 2. tn this section "public property" includes any form of reol or personal property in which the government or public body has ownership; a plant, equipment, leasehold, or other property interest as well as any right or other intangible interest thot is purchosed with public funds, including the services of contractor personnel, office supplies, telephones and other telecommunications equipment ond services, mails, automated dota, public body records ond vehicles. - 3. A leader or public officer who knowingly misuses or allows public property entrusted to his or her care to be misused, abused or left unprotected shall make good the loss occasioned to the property and the value of the property or damage to the property shall constitute a debt from the leoder or public officer to the government or public body concerned. - 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), o leader or public officer who knowingly misuses or allows public property entrusted to his or her core to be misused or abused or left unprotected moy, in addition to the sanctions under thot subsection be- - (a) Warned or cautioned; - (b) Demoted; or - (c) Dismissed from office

0. BKS

Page 4 of 6

# Resolution of the matter

p. K

- 13. ln view of the admissions by the Respondent we need not labour in detai[ whether the ingredients for the breach under section 128 were futfitted. Suffice it to note that in terms of S.128 (3) the Respondent allowed Kasangati Town Council Vehicte No. LG 00039-10G lsuzu Doubte Cabin to be misused by his personal driver, lsa Lute who was not an employee of Kasangati Town Councit. We therefore hotd him in breach. We note that the Respondent futty repaired the vehicte to the satisfaction of the Appticant and discharged the tiabitity under S. 12 B (3) which requires the Respondentfound in breach "fo make good the loss occasioned to the property .......". We therefore find no basis to make an order for re-imbursement of UGX 4,000,000/=, the assessed estimated costs of repair originatty prayed for by the Appticant which prayer was [ater abandoned in any "r"n,. , , ] i - We have taken into account the Respondent's admission of breaching the code, his remorsefutness and being a first offender, the fact that the vehicte in question was futty repaired and a[[ the circumstances of the case. We are inctined to accept that the Respondent be warned or cautioned. The Tribunal therefore finds that a caution is appropriate in the circumstances. 14. - 15. The Tribunal has taken note of the misuse of Kasangati Town CounciI vehicte Reg. No. LG 00039-10G which was facilitated by the Respondent Mr. Tom Muwonge, the Mayor of Kasangati Town Counci[ in viotation of the Leadership Code Act. Government vehictes and property should onty be used for authorized purposes. Vehicles shoutd onty be driven by authorized competent officers, which was not the case here. Mr. Tom Muwonge, as a [eader and the etected Mayor of Kasangati Town Councit, shoutd be exemplary to att the staff of the Councit in the way he uses and manages government property in his charge. Accordingty, the Respondent is hereby cautioned and warned never to repeat this. The Tribuna[ witl not hesitate to impose a more stringent penatty shoutd the Respondent breach the Leadership Code of Conduct again.

0,r

Page 5 of 6

dl-

#### Orders

16. The Tribunat hereby makes the fottowing orders:

- 1. The Respondent is hereby cautioned. - 2. Each party shat[ bear their own costs for this apptication.

Dated and detivered at Kampata this 8th Day of November 2022.

HON. DR. ROSELYN KARUGONJO. SEGAWA CHAIRPERSON

HON. ASUMAN KIYINGI DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON

\*-z-b'L)

HON. DIDAS BAKUNZI MUFASHA MEMBER

,t t&