[2009] UGCA 36

[2009] UGCA 36

The Court of Appeal held that the Bank of Uganda acted within its statutory powers under section 118 of the Financial Institutions Act and sections 4 and 6 of the Micro-Finance Deposit-Taking Institutions Act when it froze the respondent's bank accounts. The statutes do not require the Central Bank to give a hearing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGCA 36
Parties
Appellant: Bank of Uganda; Respondent: Caring for Orphans, Widows & Elderly Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Bank Account Freezing, Natural Justice, Licensing of Financial Institutions, Statutory Immunity
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Banking and Finance Judicial Review Bank Account Freezing Natural Justice Licensing of Financial Institutions Statutory Immunity

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of Uganda

Appellant

Caring for Orphans, Widows & Elderly Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the appellant acted contrary to the rules of natural justice by freezing the respondent's bank accounts without a hearing.
  2. 2 Whether the Bank of Uganda was required to give the respondent a hearing before exercising its statutory powers under the Financial Institutions Act and Micro-Finance Deposit-Taking Institutions Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Bank of Uganda is immune from legal proceedings for actions taken in good faith under the relevant statutes.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Bank of Uganda acted within its statutory powers under section 118 of the Financial Institutions Act and sections 4 and 6 of the Micro-Finance Deposit-Taking Institutions Act when it froze the respondent's bank accounts. The statutes do not require the Central Bank to give a hearing before taking such action, especially where there is reason to believe the accounts contain proceeds of crime or the respondent is operating without a licence. The respondent's refusal to cooperate with investigations and to provide access to its books constituted prima facie evidence of illegal operation. The court found that requiring a hearing in these circumstances would...

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court orders quashing the freezing of accounts are set aside.
  • Award of general damages of UGX 3,000,000 is set aside.