Barigye v Equity Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Cause 45 of 2024)
Observed later treatment
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
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
Held that a bank's freezing of a customer's account for suspicious transactions must comply with statutory reporting obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering Act. Where the bank fails to report the suspicious transaction to the Financial Intelligence Authority within 48 hours as required by law, and where the customer provides satisfactory documentation explaining the source of funds, the continued freezing of the account constitutes a breach of the banker-customer contract and is illegal. Declaratory relief granted; general damages to be pursued by substantive suit.
Outcome
Declaratory relief granted; account freeze declared illegal; applicant may pursue general damages by separate suit
Facts
The applicant sold 150 head of cattle for USD 59,500 on 16 July 2024 and received USD 40,500 in cash. On 18 July 2024, he deposited UGX 85,000,000 into his account with the respondent bank. On 20 July 2024, the respondent froze his account, citing suspicious transaction concerns under its anti-money laundering policies. The applicant provided a cattle sale agreement executed at the Uganda-Tanzania border. The respondent demanded additional documents including a cattle movement permit and a Uganda Revenue Authority declaration for cross-border currency movement, which the applicant did not possess. The respondent reported the matter to the Financial Intelligence Authority on 5 August 2024, 16 days after freezing the account and three days after being served with court process. The account was later unfrozen following internal bank recommendation before the hearing.
Issues
- Whether the Respondent's acts of freezing the Applicant's Account No.1027200288085 and withholding his money are lawful.
- What remedy is available to the Applicant.
Orders
- Declaratory order issued that the freezing of the applicant's account was illegal and a breach of contract.
- Application for general damages not determined; applicant at liberty to file a substantive suit to prove general damages with proper evidence.
- Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (2)
- UBA Plc v G.S Ind (Nig) Ltd (2011) 8 NWLR (pt 1250) 590
- Peter Sajjabi & Another v Attorney General & Bank of Uganda (Constitutional Petition No. 561 of 2013)
Cases citing this judgment (1)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.