Wakilii

Jaffery Forex Bureau Ltd v Bank of Uganda (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 202 OF 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 87 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of Bank of Uganda's decision to revoke forex bureau and money remittance licences
Decision
Application dismissed for being filed outside the statutory 30-day limitation period

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

Held that section 7 of the Foreign Exchange Act 2004, which provides for an 'appeal' to the High Court against Bank of Uganda decisions, must be interpreted as providing for judicial review remedies rather than a conventional appeal. The court found that the word 'appeal' in the statute referred to judicial review given the nature of orders available (certiorari) and absence of specific appellate procedure. However, the application was dismissed for being filed outside the statutory 30-day limitation period prescribed by section 7 of the Foreign Exchange Act. The court held that the judicial review rules permitting extension of time could not override the strict statutory time limit contained in the Act.

Outcome

Application dismissed for being filed outside the statutory 30-day limitation period

Facts

The applicant, Jaffery Forex Bureau Ltd, had operated forex and money remittance business since 1997. On 10 May 2016, Bank of Uganda revoked its licences by letter citing sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the Foreign Exchange Act 2004, effective immediately. Prior to revocation, on 2 March 2016, Bank of Uganda issued a notice to show cause. The applicant responded but received no further communication before the revocation letter. Bank of Africa had commissioned a police investigation which cleared the applicant in October 2016. Bank accounts were frozen but later unfrozen on 28 March 2019. The applicant filed this judicial review application in 2019, three years after the revocation, seeking certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, declarations of illegality, and damages totalling UGX 9.5 billion.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises any grounds for judicial review?
  2. Whether the decision and the entire process adopted by the respondent in revoking the applicant's licence to operate a forex bureau and money remittance business was ultra vires, illegal, irrational and procedurally improper?
  3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought?
  4. Whether the application is competently before the court before exhaustion of alternative remedy?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Statutory Interpretation — Purposive approach — Interpreting 'appeal' to mean judicial review
Where a statute uses the word 'appeal' but provides for remedies characteristic of judicial review (such as certiorari) and prescribes no specific appellate procedure, the court must interpret the provision purposively to give effect to legislative intent. The word 'appeal' in section 7 of the Foreign Exchange Act 2004 refers to judicial review proceedings, not a conventional appeal.
Statutory Interpretation — Golden rule — Giving sensible meaning to words
Words in an Act of Parliament must be construed so as to give them sensible meaning. Each word must be allowed to play its role in achieving legislative intent and promoting legislative object. No part of a statute can be construed in isolation; statutes must be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place.
Judicial Review — Time limits — Statutory limitation period overriding procedural rules
Where an Act of Parliament prescribes a strict statutory time limit for challenging administrative decisions (such as the 30-day period in section 7 of the Foreign Exchange Act 2004), that limitation period cannot be extended by judicial review rules or court order. A procedural rule cannot amend a substantive provision of an Act of Parliament.
Judicial Review — Alternative remedies — Statutory remedy not requiring exhaustion where it is itself judicial review
The principle requiring exhaustion of alternative remedies before seeking judicial review does not apply where the alternative remedy prescribed by statute is itself a form of judicial review. Where section 7 of the Foreign Exchange Act 2004 provides for 'appeal' but in substance provides for judicial review remedies, there is no separate alternative remedy to exhaust.
Statutory Interpretation — Role of the judge — Judicial restraint
A judge must interpret statutes purposively and constructively, asking how the makers of the Act would have straightened out any ambiguity. However, the judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, usurp the functions of Parliament, or place an unnatural interpretation on the language used by the legislature. Courts cannot legislate under the guise of interpretation.

Legislation cited (21)

Cases cited (2)

  • Seaford Court Estates v Asher [1949] 2 All ER 155
  • Bhanumati v State of U.P [2010] AIR SC 3796

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jaffery Forex Bureau Ltd v Bank of Uganda (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 202 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 87 (8 May 2020)
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.