Wakilii

Ssajjabi & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 35 of 2013)

Constitutional Court · [2016] UGCC 7 · 2016 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by a single Justice for an interim order of injunction to stay enforcement of property/account freezing orders pending determination of a constitutional petition and substantive constitutional application
Decision
Application for an interim order of injunction dismissed with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

A single Justice dismissed an application for an interim order of injunction to stay orders freezing the applicants' bank accounts and restricting their properties. While a substantive constitutional application and petition were pending, the freezing and restriction orders had been in place since November 2012, so granting an interim order would not preserve the existing status quo but create a new one, which is not the purpose of an interim order. Granting it would also interfere with the constitutional duties of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police to investigate and prosecute the suspected theft and embezzlement of pension funds. Any damage to the applicants could be atoned for in damages. The application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

Over UGX 200 billion intended as pension for retired public servants was lost through theft and embezzlement, and the Uganda Police had been investigating the loss since 2009. The first applicant, a former Secretary of the East African Community Beneficiaries Association, and the second applicant, a company under his majority control, were among the suspects. On 07.03.2013 the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained court orders freezing the applicants' bank accounts and restricting the disposal of their moveable and immoveable properties, on the basis that they might be proceeds of the suspected crimes and could be needed as exhibits pending a possible criminal trial. The applicants had filed Constitutional Petition No. 51 of 2013 challenging the constitutionality of Section 34 of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009, Legal Notice No. 9 of 2009, and the freezing orders, together with substantive Constitutional Application No. 34 of 2016 for a temporary injunction. This application for an interim order, filed on 10 February 2016, sought to stay the freezing and restriction orders and related High Court proceedings pending determination of those matters.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of injunction to stay the enforcement of orders freezing their bank accounts and restricting their properties pending determination of the substantive constitutional application and petition.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to the respondent, payable jointly and/or severally by the applicants.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Conditions for Grant of Interim Order of Stay
An applicant for an interim order of stay must show that a substantive application is pending and that there is a serious threat of executing that which is sought to be stayed before the substantive application is determined.
Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Preservation of Status Quo
The purpose of an interim order is to preserve the status quo existing when the application was filed; it cannot be used to create a new status quo, and so will not issue to remove orders that have been in force for a substantial period before the application.
Constitutional Law — Powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Police — Non-Interference with Criminal Investigation
An interim order will not be granted where it would interfere with the constitutional duties of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Article 120(3)) and the Police (Article 212(c)) to investigate and prosecute crime, particularly where the restrained property is suspected to be the proceeds of crime.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.34
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.64(c)
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.64(e)
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.98
  • Constitution of Uganda art.120(3)(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.120(3)(b)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.212(c)
  • Constitutional Court (Petition and Reference) Rules r.23(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.40
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43(1)(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.44
  • Legal Notice No. 9 of 2009

Cases cited (2)

  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein & 2 Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
  • Horizon Coaches Limited v Francis Mutabazi & Others (Civil Application No. 21 of 2001)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.