A court ruling in the infamous Three Ways Shipping Services case delivered by High Court Judge Lawrence Gidudu on April 30, has stunned Uganda’s investment community, sending a chilling signal about the state of justice and commercial integrity in the country.
In a decision that has drawn widespread criticism, the Commercial Division of the High Court appeared to legitimize the retention of $4 million that had been fraudulently obtained from the Bank of Uganda, sparking fears about judicial complicity and the security of business operations in Uganda.
The dispute centers on a long-running case in which Three Ways Shipping Services directors Oscar Baitwa and Geoffrey Bihamaiso were implicated in the fraudulent withdrawal of over $4 million from MTN Uganda
Three Ways Shipping Services Ltd, a company that was contracted by MTN (U) Ltd to provide forwarding and clearing services for MTN’s equipment sourced from overseas. However, in the course of business, MTN alleged that the company had been paid money based on false invoices supported by fake airways bills and false delivery notes which totaled USD 3, 800,000.
The prosecution alleged that two employees of MTN processed payment to the accused’s company using 125 fake invoices purporting that the company had issued them for payment. These fake invoices used to be missed with the genuine company invoices to avoid detection. The two were charged with theft, receiving money by false pretense and conspiracy to defraud MTN.
The accused were faulted because they were the only signatories to the company accounts on which the stolen funds were deposited. As the only signatories, the prosecution alleged that they were the beneficial owners of the money which they must have withdrawn and given some to employees of MTN in order to motivate them to continue forging invoices for about three years.
The accused denied the charges contending that they were not aware of any fraud against MTN (U) Ltd and only learnt of it when the complaint was raised about fictitious invoices being mixed with genuine invoices for payment to the company.
It was their defense that upon learning of this complaint, they engaged MTN Management to reconcile the accounts and even paid USD 300,000 to show their good faith in resolving the dispute but MTN insisted on going to Court.
Despite damning evidence presented in both the Auditor General’s report and internal bank investigations, the court ruled that the shipping company could retain the funds, citing procedural lapses and the Bank of Uganda’s failure to recover the money within the expected legal timelines.
The judgment, perceived by many as legally technical and morally bankrupt, has triggered outrage from legal analysts, financial regulators, and business leaders alike.
“This ruling is nothing short of dangerous,” said a Kampala-based corporate governance consultant. “It undermines decades of work to build a credible financial sector and raises serious questions about whether Uganda’s judiciary is still a reliable arbiter of commercial justice.”
Legal experts argue that the court’s reasoning sets a perilous precedent — that if a party successfully delays proceedings or if a government entity mismanages case timelines, then stolen or fraudulently obtained funds can be retained with impunity. This, they say, not only emboldens corruption but also exposes institutional investors to heightened risk.
“This is effectively a ruling that excuses fraud because of a bureaucratic delay,” said one prominent lawyer. “It signals to every thief in a suit that if you exploit weak institutions, the judiciary may reward you.”
The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has reportedly convened an emergency meeting to review the ruling, with some senior lawyers calling for judicial review or even an appeal to the Supreme Court, citing the decision as a betrayal of the principles of justice and accountability.
The fallout extends far beyond the legal realm. The Uganda Investment Authority is said to be fielding concerned inquiries from foreign investors, particularly those in the banking and logistics sectors, who fear that judicial protection for fraudsters could leave their investments exposed.
Meanwhile, civil society organizations have condemned the ruling as a blow to anti-corruption efforts. “This is judicial laundering of theft,” tweeted one transparency watchdog. “How can Uganda claim to fight corruption when courts are normalizing stolen money?”
With investor confidence shaken and the judiciary under the spotlight, the Three Ways ruling is poised to become a landmark — not for justice served, but for justice denied. Calls are mounting for reforms in how commercial disputes involving public funds are handled, and whether special anti-corruption courts should take over such high-stakes cases.