Wakilii

PT Suka Jadi Logam v Uganda and Another (Criminal Miscellaneous Cause 27 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCACD 20 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review and set aside ex parte restraining order issued under Anti-Money Laundering Act arising from Criminal Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2026
Decision
Application to review and set aside the ex parte restraining order dismissed; restraining order remains in force

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 court dismissed an application to review and set aside an ex parte restraining order over USD 1,325,705.47 held in a law firm's bank account. The applicant, an Indonesian company claiming ownership of the funds, failed to prove lawful ownership, legal interest, or entitlement to lawful possession as required by s.84(6)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act. No evidence was adduced establishing the company's lawful existence, the legitimate source of the funds in Indonesia, or the legitimacy of the transfer. The applicant also failed to demonstrate it was innocent of complicity in any crime or that the funds were no longer required for ongoing money laundering and fraud investigations.

Outcome

Application to review and set aside the ex parte restraining order dismissed; restraining order remains in force

Facts

An Indonesian company, PT Suka Jadi Logam, sent USD 1,325,705.47 to NSB Advocates & Legal Consultants in Uganda pursuant to an escrow agreement dated 6 October 2025 for the purpose of setting up a gold-dealing business. The funds were deposited in Bank of Africa account No. 08323300013. On 21 October 2025, the State House Anti-Corruption Unit received intelligence reports from a whistleblower regarding suspected fraud coordinated through NSB Advocates. Police arrested Advocate Esther Barungi, the managing partner and principal bank account signatory. The Financial Intelligence Authority directed Bank of Africa to freeze the account. Police obtained successive freezing orders from Buganda Road Chief Magistrate's Court on 22 October 2025 and 3 December 2025. On 24 February 2026, the High Court Anti-Corruption Division issued a restraining order for six months prohibiting all persons from dealing with the funds. Police requested Esther Barungi to produce the company's directors for interrogation on two occasions (10 and 12 November 2025); no one appeared. The company, through its attorney Musinguzi Lordrick Kamukama, applied to review and set aside the restraining order, asserting ownership of the funds and alleging the order was obtained by sinister means without notice.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had established that it was the lawful owner of or had a legal interest in the restrained funds under s.84(6)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
  2. Whether the applicant had demonstrated that it was innocent of any complicity in the commission of a crime or collusion in relation to such crime under s.84(6)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
  3. Whether the restrained property would no longer be required for purposes of investigation or as evidence under s.84(6)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
  4. Whether the obtaining of the ex parte restraining order without notice to the applicant was unlawful or an abuse of process.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Anti-Money Laundering — Restraining Orders — Review of Ex Parte Orders — Burden of Proof
Under s.84(6) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, an applicant seeking to review and set aside a restraining order bears the burden of proving that it is the lawful owner of the property, has a legal interest or is entitled to lawful possession, and appears to be innocent of any complicity in the commission of a crime or of any collusion in relation to such crime, and that the property will no longer be required for purposes of any investigation or as evidence.
Anti-Money Laundering — Proof of Ownership — Offshore Entities — Evidentiary Requirements
Where an offshore entity makes a large unexplained forex cash deposit that raises suspicion and triggers a restraining order on grounds that there are reasonable grounds to believe the money is proceeds of crime, the onus shifts to the applicant to present clear evidence of its legitimate right to the money, including proof of the company's lawful existence, the legality and source of the funds in the country of origin, the legitimacy of the transfer, and the bona fides of the business purpose for which the funds were sent.
Anti-Money Laundering — Ex Parte Applications — Dispensation with Notice
Under s.75 and s.79 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, an application for a restraining order may lawfully be made ex parte without notice to the affected party if there is a concern that providing notice could result in the dissipation of assets, and commencing an application in this manner is neither sinister nor unlawful.
Anti-Money Laundering — Restraining Orders — Constitutional Safeguards — Time Limits
A restraining order under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, though restricting property rights, is consistent with constitutional rights to property and to a fair hearing because it is not absolute, may be reviewed at any time under s.84 if the statutory criteria are met, and is time-bound, typically lasting no more than six months from the date of issue.
Forum Shopping — Abuse of Process — Attempting to Overturn Order in Different Division
Where a restraining order is issued under s.76 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, s.84 sets out the exclusive procedure for varying or setting aside the order, and it is improper, unlawful, and an abuse of process amounting to forum shopping to attempt to overturn the order by filing an application in a different division of the High Court.

Legislation cited (11)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

PT Suka Jadi Logam v Uganda and Another (Criminal Miscellaneous Cause 27 of 2026) [2026] UGHCACD 20 (28 July 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.