Wakilii

Denis Daniel Ssemugenyi and Daniel Denis Investment Group Ltd v Uganda (Criminal Revision 48 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCRD 30 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal revision application seeking to set aside a freezing order issued by the Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Freezing order set aside and bank accounts ordered unfrozen with immediate effect

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 set aside a freezing order that had been in effect for over ten months without charges being filed. The court held that the prolonged freeze violated the temporal limits of section 8 of the Computer Misuse Act, which requires preservation orders to remain in force only for a period reasonably required for investigation. The State failed to establish reasonable grounds that the funds were vulnerable to loss or modification, and the freeze infringed the applicants' constitutional right to property under Article 26, causing undue hardship that outweighed speculative investigative concerns.

Outcome

Freezing order set aside and bank accounts ordered unfrozen with immediate effect

Facts

On September 12, 2023, Daniel Dennis Investment Group Ltd entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Thorington Capital Markets Ltd for arrangement of a USD 35 million non-recourse loan. The company paid USD 120,000 in processing fees, deposited into a fiduciary account held by Spirit to Wealth Limited on September 21, 2023. On September 5, 2024, the Chief Magistrate's Court issued a freezing order on the company's DFCU Bank account following a complaint by Thorington alleging fraud and money laundering. The applicants asserted that Thorington reneged on the MOU, refunded the fees, and that the frozen funds were from legitimate sources. The applicants further alleged that DFCU Bank froze their accounts for two months without a valid court order, closed other accounts, and confiscated property titles. The freeze remained in effect for over ten months without charges being filed. The applicants demonstrated that the freeze disrupted a scholarship program supporting over 1,000 children under 15 years of age.

Issues

  1. Whether the continued freezing of the applicants' bank account for over ten months remains correct, legal, or proper under the Computer Misuse Act and the Criminal Procedure Code Act.
  2. Whether the freezing order violates the applicants' constitutional right to property under Article 26 of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the State has established reasonable grounds to believe that the funds are vulnerable to loss or modification as required by section 8 of the Computer Misuse Act.
  4. Whether the hardship caused by the freezing order is proportionate to the State's investigative needs.

Orders

  • The freezing order issued by the Chief Magistrate's Court of Buganda Road on September 5, 2024, in Criminal Miscellaneous Cause No. 0003 of 2024 is set aside.
  • DFCU Bank is directed to unfreeze Account Number USD 02660014859731 in the name of Daniel Dennis Investment Group Ltd with immediate effect.
  • DFCU Bank is directed to unfreeze any other account affected by the preservation order.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Preservation Orders — Temporal Limits under Computer Misuse Act
A preservation order issued under section 8 of the Computer Misuse Act must remain in force only for a period reasonably required for the investigation of an offence. A freezing order that continues for over ten months without charges being filed or demonstrable investigative progress exceeds the lawful temporal scope of the provision and violates the Act.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Preservation Orders — Evidentiary Requirements
Section 8 of the Computer Misuse Act requires reasonable grounds to believe that data or funds are vulnerable to loss or modification before a preservation order may be issued. The State must adduce specific evidence demonstrating a prima facie case or substantiated risk of dissipation; speculative assertions without supporting evidence are insufficient to meet this evidentiary threshold.
Constitutional Law — Right to Property — Proportionality of Restrictions
Any limitation on the constitutional right to property under Article 26 of the Constitution must be necessary, proportionate, and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. A prolonged freezing order without charges or evidence that causes significant hardship to the applicant, including disruption of a charitable program, is disproportionate where the State's concerns are speculative and unsupported by evidence.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Revisional Jurisdiction — Setting Aside Preservation Orders
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under sections 48 and 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act empowers the court to set aside a preservation order where the order is neither correct, legal, nor proper, including where the order has exceeded its lawful temporal limits, lacks evidentiary foundation, and causes undue hardship that outweighs the investigative interest.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Preservation Orders — Non-Cooperation Not Grounds for Indefinite Freeze
An accused person's absence from the jurisdiction or failure to respond to investigative summons does not constitute reasonable grounds under section 8 of the Computer Misuse Act to believe that funds are vulnerable to loss or modification, and does not justify an indefinite freezing order in the absence of substantive evidence of fraud or money laundering.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Denis Daniel Ssemugenyi and Daniel Denis Investment Group Ltd v Uganda (Criminal Revision 48 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCRD 30 (21 August 2025)
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.