Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
KCB Bank v Kataike and Another (Civil Appeal 5 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 297 (23 October 2023)
The High Court upheld the release of a frozen joint bank account, finding the chief magistrate had jurisdiction and that the bank was the proper party sued.
Uganda Women's Network and Another v Financial Intelligence Authority and Another (Misc Cause No. 23 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 141 (7 September 2022)
The court found that the application was not moot despite the unfreezing of the Applicants' accounts, as live controversies remained regarding the legality and procedure of the freezing actions. The Financial Intelligence Authority acted ultra vires and illegally by freezing the Applicants' bank accounts without presenting credible evidence or reasonable suspicion of terrorism financing, and failed to comply with statutory procedural requirements, including timely notification to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Respondents' actions were tainted with illegality and procedural impropri…
Source excerpt
Seruwagi v Magara & 14 Others (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 311 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 198 (18 September 2020)
The applicant failed to demonstrate that he was an aggrieved person in the legal sense, as he was present at most hearings and aware of the proceedings. The court found that the applicant's affiliation with the D9 Club, a Ponzi scheme, justified the freezing and transfer of his bank account funds for compensation of victims. The applicant did not provide sufficient cause for review, as he did not challenge the freezing of his accounts, report to police, or present new evidence. The contention of being condemned unheard was not sustained, as the applicant had opportunities to be heard and was…
Source excerpt
Dabule and Others v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Appeal 1 of 2018) [2020] EACJ 42 (25 February 2020) (Appellate Division)
The Appellate Division found that the trial court erred in law by introducing and deciding the case on an unpleaded issue (lack of cause of action) without giving the parties an opportunity to address it, contrary to the rules of natural justice and established procedural law. The trial court's reliance on its inherent powers under Rule 1(2) of the EACJ Rules was misplaced, as such powers cannot be exercised to override procedural fairness or to decide matters not raised by the parties. The appellate court held that the reference disclosed a cause of action, as the appellants alleged violatio…
Source excerpt
Smart Protus Magara & 138 & Ors v Financial Intelligence Authority (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 215 OF 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 52 (7 March 2019)
The High Court upheld the Financial Intelligence Authority’s freezing of accounts under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, but ordered verified D9 Club victims paid from the frozen funds.
Palmfox v DFCU Bank (U) Ltd & 2 Ors (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.423 OF 2017) [2019] UGHCCD 51 (7 March 2019)
The court found a clear nexus between the applicant and D9 Club through its majority shareholder and managing director, Tadeo Seruwagi, who was an affiliate of the Ponzi scheme. The regulatory authorities acted within their statutory mandates under the Financial Institutions Act and Anti-Money Laundering Act to freeze the applicant’s accounts based on reasonable suspicion of proceeds of crime. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondents’ actions were unlawful, ultra vires, or violated its rights. The court held that the lifting of the corporate veil was justified in this context…
Source excerpt
Dabule and Others v Attorney General of Uganda [2018] EACJ 125 (28 November 2018) (First Instance Division)
The Court found that the Applicants' Reference was premised on a false assertion that national courts had clarified the legal position on the unfrozen accounts. Neither the Constitutional Court nor the Supreme Court of Uganda made a determination entitling the Applicants to payment; instead, they recommended that the matter be addressed by ordinary courts. The Applicants failed to establish any contravention of Ugandan national law or Treaty obligations by the Respondent. The letter of August 2016, which formed the basis of the Reference, was rooted in a misdirection of law and did not give r…
Source excerpt
Dabule and 2 Others v A.G and Bank of Uganda (Consitutional Petition No. 2 of 2004) [2007] UGCC 8 (14 September 2007)
The court held that the Banking (Freezing of Accounts) Orders, specifically Legal Notices 2 of 1982 and 2 & 3 of 1984, were made pursuant to section 26A of the Banking Act 1969. Section 54 of the Financial Institutions Statute No.4 of 1993 repealed the entire Banking Act 1969, including section 26A. The saving provision in section 54(2) only preserved statutory instruments that were consistent with the new statute. Since the freezing policy was reversed by the 1993 Statute, the Legal Notices became inconsistent and ceased to have legal effect from 14th May 1993. Consequently, the Legal Notice…
Source excerpt
