MTN ordered to pay Shs 2.3bn to former manager over malicious prosecution

The High Court of Uganda has delivered a significant judgment against MTN Uganda Limited, ordering the telecommunications giant to pay Shs 2.3 billion in damages to its former senior manager, Richard Mwami, for malicious prosecution. The court found that MTN had improperly instigated criminal proceedings against Mwami in connection with a high-profile mobile money fraud case. The ruling underscores the judiciary's intolerance for the weaponization of the criminal justice system by corporate entities to settle internal disputes or deflect liability. By awarding substantial damages, the court has signaled that employers who initiate criminal investigations without reasonable and probable cause, or with malice, will face severe financial repercussions under the tort of malicious prosecution.

For legal practitioners, this case serves as a critical reminder of the evidentiary threshold required to sustain a claim for malicious prosecution, which necessitates proving that the defendant initiated the prosecution, that it terminated in the plaintiff's favor, and that it was done without reasonable cause and with malice. The judgment highlights the risks corporations face when they bypass internal disciplinary procedures in favor of criminal litigation. It also emphasizes the importance of maintaining rigorous internal investigation protocols that adhere to the principles of natural justice, as the court scrutinized the lack of evidence linking Mwami to the alleged fraud, ultimately viewing the company's actions as an abuse of process.

Practitioners and corporate counsel should monitor this development closely, as it may embolden other employees to seek redress for wrongful accusations. Businesses are advised to conduct thorough, impartial internal audits before involving law enforcement in corporate fraud cases. Legal teams should ensure that any criminal complaints filed are supported by concrete, admissible evidence to avoid counter-litigation. Moving forward, this precedent will likely influence how the High Court assesses the conduct of large corporations when they act as complainants in criminal matters, reinforcing the necessity for corporate accountability and the protection of individual rights against institutional overreach.