Dabule & 2 Ors v Attorney General & Anor (Constitutional Appeal 3 of 2007)

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Legal Notices freezing the appellants' bank accounts, made under section 26A of the Banking Act 1969, ceased to have the force of law when that Act was repealed by the Financial Institutions Act 1993 without re-enacting section 26A; the subordinate legislation lost its statutory base and was not saved under section 12 of the Interpretation Act or section 54(2) of the repealing Act. As the Notices were no longer in force, no question of constitutional inconsistency arose. A mere allegation that continued freezing infringed the right to property under Article 26 raised no question of constitutional interpretation, so the Constitutional Court had no jurisdiction under Article 137. The appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the appellants' grievance over the unrecovered accounts left to be pursued before an ordinary court.

Facts

Following the 1979 fall of Idi Amin's government, the Banking Act 1969 was amended in 1980 to add section 26A, empowering the Minister of Finance to order banks to freeze the accounts of persons associated with or benefiting from the former regime. Under that power the Minister made Legal Notices No. 2 of 1982 and Nos. 2 and 3 of 1984, freezing the appellants' accounts, which were transferred to the Bank of Uganda and invested in treasury bills. In 1993 the Financial Institutions Act repealed the Banking Act 1969 without re-enacting section 26A. In 1995 the Minister directed commercial banks to defreeze the accounts, but the appellants were unable to recover their money despite extensive correspondence with the banks, Bank of Uganda and the Ministry of Finance. The appellants petitioned the Constitutional Court, claiming the Legal Notices remained in force and were inconsistent with the 1995 Constitution's protection of property. The Constitutional Court dismissed the petition, holding the Notices had been repealed before the Constitution took effect. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether Legal Notices No. 2 of 1982 and Nos. 2 and 3 of 1984, made under section 26A of the Banking Act 1969, were repealed by the Financial Institutions Act 1993 or remained in force.
2. If the Legal Notices remained in force, whether they were inconsistent with the appellants' constitutional right to protection from deprivation of property.
3. Whether the Bank of Uganda's alleged continued freezing of the appellants' accounts gave the Constitutional Court jurisdiction to grant redress under Article 137 of the Constitution.

Orders

• The appeal is dismissed.
• No order is made as to costs, both in the Supreme Court and in the courts below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (14)

• Banking Act 1969 s.26A
• Banking Act 1969 s.26B
• Banking Act (Amendment) Statute 18 of 1980
• Financial Institutions Statute No. 4 of 1993 s.54(1)
• Financial Institutions Statute No. 4 of 1993 s.54(2)
• Interpretation Act s.12
• Interpretation Act s.14
• Interpretation Act s.16
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 21(1) and (2)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 26(1) and (2)
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 28
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 50
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 137(3) and (4)
• Civil Procedure Act s.27(1)

Cases cited (8)

• Attorney General v Silver Springs Hotel Ltd and Others (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1989)
• Attorney General of Gambia v Jobe [1985] LRC (Const.) 556
• Sempebwa v Attorney General (Constitutional Case No. 1 of 1987)
• Sureschandra Ghalani v Chandrakant Patel (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2004)
• Kimani v Attorney General [1969] EA 502
• Impressa Infortunato Federici v Irene Nabwire (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
• Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
• Attorney General v Major General D. Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

• Humphrey Nzeyi v Bank of Uganda and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 01 of 2021)
• CRJE (East Africa) Limited v National Council for Higher Education (Application 27 of 2024)
• Kigongo v Mosa Courts Apartment Ltd (Company Cause No. 01 of 2015)
• Olive Kigongo v Mosa Courts Apartment Ltd (Company Cause No. 01 of 2015)

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