Wakilii

Uganda Women's Network and Another v Financial Intelligence Authority and Another (Misc Cause No. 23 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 141 · 2022 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 bank accounts by the Financial Intelligence Authority
Decision
Application partly allowed with declaratory relief granted; damages claim dismissed for lack of proof; costs awarded to applicants against 1st respondent

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's freezing of the applicants' bank accounts under the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Act 2015 was illegal, ultra vires and irregular. The court found that the FIA exercised its mandate without presenting evidence leading to its satisfaction that the applicants were financing terrorist activities, as required by section 17A(1). The application was not moot despite the accounts having been unfrozen, as the court was called upon to examine the legality of the procedure used. The court granted declaratory relief but declined to award damages for lack of proof of quantum.

Outcome

Application partly allowed with declaratory relief granted; damages claim dismissed for lack of proof; costs awarded to applicants against 1st respondent

Facts

The applicants are two indigenous NGOs registered in Uganda and funded by international development partners. In November 2020, the Financial Intelligence Authority instructed the applicants' bankers to freeze all their bank accounts under section 17A of the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Act 2015, suspecting terrorism financing activities. The applicants were not notified in advance and only learned of the freeze when they attempted to operate their accounts. The FIA informed the Director of Public Prosecutions on 10 December 2020, more than two weeks after the freeze. The accounts were subsequently unfrozen on 19 February 2021 on the DPP's direction, pending further investigations. The freeze affected over 200 households as the applicants could not pay staff salaries or meet financial obligations, causing financial and reputational harm.

Issues

  1. Whether this application is moot.
  2. Whether the Respondents' actions in regard to the Applicants were lawful, judicious and in accordance with the rules of natural justice.
  3. What remedies (if any) are available to the Applicants.

Orders

  • It is declared that the 1st Respondent's freezing of the Applicants' Bank Accounts was illegal, ultra vires, null and void.
  • It is declared that the decision by the 1st Respondent directing the Applicants' bankers to freeze, restrict or halt all withdrawals or debits from the Applicants' Bank Accounts was without reasonable suspicion to warrant an investigation into the allegations of terrorism financing.
  • Remedies of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and Permanent Injunction are not applicable as the 1st Respondent has since unfrozen all the Applicants' Bank accounts.
  • The 1st Respondent pays costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Mootness Doctrine — Live Controversy Requirement
An application for judicial review is not moot where the court is called upon to examine the legality of the decision-making process itself, even if the impugned decision has been reversed, particularly where the applicant seeks declaratory relief regarding the lawfulness of the procedure used and claims damages for harm suffered.
Judicial Review — Scope — Legality of Decision-Making Process
In judicial review, the court's exclusive concern is with the legality of the administrative action or decision-making process, not with the merits of the decision itself. The court examines whether the decision-maker had jurisdiction, whether affected persons were heard, and whether relevant matters were taken into account.
Administrative Law — Anti-Terrorism Legislation — Freezing of Accounts — Requirement of Satisfaction
Before freezing funds or seizing property under section 17A(1) of the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Act 2015, the Financial Intelligence Authority must be satisfied that the funds or property is intended for terrorism activities. To be satisfied requires information or circumstances leading to reasonable suspicion that the party has engaged or is about to engage in terrorism activities, and the authority must be able to present that information to court if called upon.
Administrative Law — Burden of Proof — Public Authority Actions
Where a public authority claims to have acted on confidential intelligence reports, it must present evidence of the basis for its actions to the court. If the information is considered too confidential to be presented in open court, the authority should move court under regulation 18(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Regulations 2016 to have its evidence examined in camera. Courts should set aside decisions of public bodies if unsupported by substantial evidence.
Administrative Law — Illegality — Exercise of Statutory Powers Without Evidence
A decision-making authority commits an error of law and acts illegally, ultra vires and irregularly when it exercises statutory powers to freeze bank accounts without presenting evidence leading to its satisfaction that the statutory conditions for exercising such powers have been met.
Damages — General Damages — Burden of Proof
It is the duty of a claimant seeking damages to plead and prove that damages, losses or injuries were suffered as a result of the defendant's actions. Where damages are pleaded but not proved as to quantum, the court will decline to award damages even where liability is established.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (25)

  • Julius Maganda v National Resistance Movement (Miscellaneous Application No. 154 of 2010)
  • Pine Pharmacy Ltd and Eight Others v National Drug Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 142 of 2016)
  • Chief Constable of North Wales Police -v- Evans [1982] 3 ALLER 141
  • Editors' Guild Uganda Ltd and Center for Public Interest Law Limited v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 400 of 2020)
  • Patricia Mutesi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 241 of 2016)
  • Justice Okumu Wengi -v- Attorney General of Uganda (2007) 600 KaLR
  • Human Rights Network for Journalists and Another v Uganda Communications Commission and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 219 of 2013)
  • Turyakira John Robert and Odur Anthony v URA (Miscellaneous Cause No. 166 of 2018)
  • Municipal Council of Mombasa -v- Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd [2002] eKLR
  • Sundus Exchange and Money Transfer and Five Others v Financial Intelligence Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 154 of 2018)
  • Uganda Health Marketing Group v Financial Intelligence Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 170 of 2019)
  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • R -v- Commission for Racial Equality exp Hillingdon LBC [1982] QB 276
  • Sharp -v- Wakefield [1891] AC 173
  • Bank of Uganda v Caring for Orphans, Widows and Elderly (COWE) (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2007)
  • Lloyd -v- Mc Mahon [1987] AC 627
  • R (West) -v- Parole Board [2005] 1 WLR 350
  • Opio Belmos Ogwang v Attorney General and Inspectorate of Government (Miscellaneous Cause No. 158 of 2015)
  • Pastoli -v- Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300
  • R (on application of British Sky Broadcasting Ltd) -v- Central Criminal Court [2011] 3451(Admin); 2012 QB 785
  • R (on application of MD (Gambia) -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 121
  • Ndangwa Richard v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 244 of 2017)
  • Ojangole Patricia and 4 Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 303 of 2013)
  • Robert Coussens v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 08 of 1999)
  • Luzinda v Ssekamatte and 3 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Women's Network and Another v Financial Intelligence Authority and Another (Misc Cause No. 23 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 141 (7 September 2022)
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.