Telecommunications giant MTN Uganda has indicated it is considering an appeal against a High Court judgment ordering it to pay more than Shs2.3 billion in damages to its former Senior Manager, Richard Mwami, for malicious prosecution.
In a statement issued after Friday's ruling, the company said it was reviewing the judgment delivered on June 26, 2026, together with its legal advisers before determining its next course of action.
"MTN Uganda notes the judgment of the High Court delivered on 26 June 2026 in the matter of Richard Mwami v Attorney General and MTN Uganda Limited.
"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."
The company added that because the matter could proceed to the appellate courts, it would not be making any further public comment.
The ruling by Acting Justice Isaac Bonny Teko found MTN Uganda liable for malicious prosecution and awarded Mwami Shs1.809 billion in special damages, Shs400 million in general damages and Shs100 million in exemplary damages, bringing the total award to more than Shs2.3 billion, excluding interest and legal costs.
The Attorney General was struck out of the suit after the court found that the claim against the Government had been filed outside the statutory limitation period.
Mwami had sued both the Attorney General and MTN Uganda following his prosecution over the 2012 MTN Mobile Money fraud scandal involving billions of shillings.
He argued that he had in fact been the whistleblower who detected and reported suspicious transactions to senior management before later being turned into an accused person.
In its judgment, the High Court held that MTN was the "moving force" behind the criminal proceedings despite evidence that an earlier forensic audit had reportedly not implicated Mwami.
The court concluded that the company lacked reasonable and probable cause and had acted maliciously in initiating the prosecution.
The judgment, however, has generated debate within legal circles over the extent to which a complainant should bear liability once a criminal matter has been handed over to law enforcement authorities.
Several legal experts who spoke to this publication said the case is likely to provide the Court of Appeal with an opportunity to clarify the law governing malicious prosecution and the respective roles of private complainants and State agencies.
According to the lawyers, once an individual or company reports a suspected criminal offence, the constitutional responsibility for investigating the allegations, evaluating the available evidence and deciding whether criminal charges should be brought ordinarily shifts to the Uganda Police Force and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
"The company's obligation was to report what it believed was a crime. From that point onwards, the investigative agencies and prosecutors independently exercise their constitutional mandate before the courts determine guilt or innocence," one legal expert said.
They noted, however, that the High Court's decision did not rest merely on the fact that MTN reported the suspected fraud. Rather, the court found that the company had actively instigated and driven the prosecution despite information that allegedly exonerated Mwami.
That finding, legal observers say, is likely to become one of the central issues on appeal.
Appellate courts, they explained, frequently examine whether trial courts correctly applied the legal principles governing malicious prosecution, particularly where independent investigators and prosecutors exercised their statutory powers before criminal charges were sanctioned.
The appeal, if filed, could therefore clarify the threshold required before a complainant may be held liable for criminal proceedings ultimately conducted by State agencies.
For corporate entities, the outcome may carry broader implications. Businesses routinely report suspected fraud, theft and corruption to law enforcement authorities. A definitive appellate ruling could provide guidance on the circumstances in which a complainant crosses the line from merely reporting suspected criminal conduct to unlawfully instigating a prosecution.
At the same time, legal analysts caution that complainants cannot rely on the existence of police investigations or prosecutorial decisions as an automatic shield from civil liability.
Where a complainant is found to have knowingly supplied false information, withheld exculpatory evidence or improperly influenced the prosecution process, courts may still conclude that the complainant was the effective driving force behind the criminal case.
Until any appeal is heard, the High Court judgment remains legally binding and enforceable unless execution is stayed by the Court of Appeal.
Given the prominence of the underlying MTN Mobile Money fraud case and the substantial damages awarded, the dispute is expected to attract significant legal and public attention.
An appellate decision could ultimately shape how Ugandan courts balance the duty of individuals and companies to report suspected crime against the rights of those who claim they were wrongfully prosecuted.
