Wakilii

BMS General Trading Limited v Financial Intelligence Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 25 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 107 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging the freezing of the applicant's bank account by the Financial Intelligence Authority
Decision
Application partly allowed with findings of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety against the Financial Intelligence Authority, but court declined to overturn subsequent Anti-Corruption Court freezing order due to lack of jurisdiction over concurrent court orders

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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

The High Court held that the Financial Intelligence Authority acted illegally, irrationally, and with procedural impropriety in freezing the applicant's bank account. The freeze was effected without a court order and without compliance with mandatory statutory procedures under the Anti-Terrorism Act and Anti-Money Laundering Act. The court found the decision procedurally improper and disproportionate. However, the court declined to overturn a subsequent valid freezing order issued by the Anti-Corruption Court, as it lacked jurisdiction to vary or reverse an order made by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction. Costs were awarded to the applicant.

Outcome

Application partly allowed with findings of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety against the Financial Intelligence Authority, but court declined to overturn subsequent Anti-Corruption Court freezing order due to lack of jurisdiction over concurrent court orders

Facts

BMS General Trading Limited, a company dealing in general merchandise, discovered on 4 January 2026 that USD 221,000 in its Stanbic Bank account had been frozen. The bank advised the applicant to contact the Financial Intelligence Authority (FIA). The applicant wrote to the FIA but received no response. The FIA had acted on a suspicious warning received from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions on 15 October 2025. The applicant contended it was a legitimate trader in maize and had supplied maize to Mohamed Ahmed Elmi, receiving two payments totaling USD 221,000, supported by invoices and receipts. The FIA maintained the freeze was lawful under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, alleging the company was a sham with no physical location and a conduit for money laundering. Subsequently, the Anti-Corruption Court issued a freezing order in HCMA 0079 of 2025 validating the freeze.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is amenable for judicial review?
  2. Whether the 1st Respondent acted ultra vires its powers or illegally when it directed Stanbic Bank (U) to freeze the Applicant's bank account without a prior court order?
  3. Whether the 1st Respondent is acting ultra vires by maintaining its own freezing order for an inordinate time?
  4. Whether the 1st Respondent and ODPP acted irrationally in freezing the Applicant's bank account without reasonable suspicion that the Applicant is party to money laundering and financing of terrorism?
  5. Whether the 1st Respondent and ODPP acted with procedural impropriety by failing to inform the Applicant within a reasonable time of the allegations against it leading to the freezing of its account?
  6. What remedies is the Applicant entitled to?

Orders

  • The Respondents acted illegally by failing to comply with mandatory statutory provisions in both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Anti-Money Laundering Act in the freezing of the Applicant's USD 221,000 held with Stanbic Bank (U) Limited Account No. 930008072360.
  • The decision to freeze was procedurally improper at the time it was made and violated the Applicant's right to a fair hearing.
  • The freezing of the Applicant's USD 221,000 without a court order for an inordinate period was irrational and disproportionate.
  • The court declined to grant general, punitive, or exemplary damages as judicial review is not the appropriate forum for compensatory relief.
  • The court declined to vary, reverse, or overturn the valid order issued by the Anti-Corruption Court freezing the sum of USD 221,000.
  • Costs awarded to the Applicant.
  • The applicant is at liberty to pursue an application for review or setting aside by the same court that issued the freeze order or to file an appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Exercise of Public Power
For a matter to be amenable to judicial review, it must involve the exercise of public power or the performance of a public duty by a body exercising public law functions, and the decision must be alleged to be tainted by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
Anti-Money Laundering — Freezing of Bank Accounts — Statutory Authority and Limits
While the Financial Intelligence Authority has statutory authority under section 23(o) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act to freeze bank accounts suspected of being linked to money laundering, that power is not unfettered and must be exercised upon credible evidence giving rise to reasonable suspicion, in compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards, and subject to prompt judicial oversight.
Judicial Review — Illegality — Failure to Comply with Statutory Procedure
Where a statute prescribes a procedure for the exercise of administrative power, that procedure must be strictly followed, and failure to comply renders the act ultra vires and amenable to judicial review on grounds of illegality.
Judicial Review — Procedural Impropriety — Right to Fair Hearing
The freezing of a bank account without prompt judicial oversight and without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard within a reasonable time constitutes procedural impropriety and violates the constitutional right to fair administrative treatment under Article 42 of the Constitution.
Judicial Review — Irrationality — Wednesbury Unreasonableness
A decision to freeze a commercial bank account is irrational and amenable to judicial review where it is taken in the absence of objective material capable of grounding a reasonable suspicion of illegality, lacks a logical nexus between the evidence and the decision, and is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made it.
Judicial Review — Jurisdiction — Concurrent Jurisdiction of High Court Judges
A judge of the High Court has no jurisdiction to vary, set aside, or reverse a valid order made by another judge of concurrent jurisdiction, and any attempt to do so through judicial review proceedings is procedurally improper and would be a nullity; the proper avenues are appeal, review by the same court, or setting aside in specific procedural contexts.
Judicial Review — Remedies — Damages Not Available
Judicial review is a supervisory jurisdiction concerned with the legality of administrative action and not with the vindication of private rights through compensatory relief; general, punitive, or exemplary damages are not available in judicial review proceedings and must be sought in an ordinary civil suit or constitutional petition.

Legislation cited (20)

Cases cited (17)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

BMS General Trading Limited v Financial Intelligence Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 25 of 2026) [2026] UGHCCD 107 (8 April 2026)
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.