Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Writer
A UGANDAN couple has successfully overturned an unexplained wealth order issued against it by the High Court, in a ruling that dealt a blow to the National Prosecuting Authority’s (NPA) case alleging money laundering.
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Samuel Kudya, ruled on Friday in favour of Robert and Sandie Kwesiga, setting aside the High Court judgment that had frozen two of their properties in Harare.
The contested properties included a house in Mount Pleasant valued at US$115 000 and another in Vainona worth US$165 000.
The NPA obtained the unexplained wealth order in May last year, arguing that the couple’s known income was insufficient to justify the purchases and suggesting the properties were acquired through proceeds of crime.
However, the Supreme Court found that the NPA’s allegations were baseless and unsupported by factual evidence.
Robert Kwesiga, a senior official with the Danish Red Cross, lived in Zimbabwe with his wife between 2005 and 2013.
The couple, represented by Advocate Thabani Mpofu and instructed by the law firm Gill, Godlonton & Gerrans, maintained that the properties were bought legitimately using income earned during their stay in Zimbabwe and proceeds from a property sale in Uganda.
They submitted bank records and a Ugandan property sale agreement as evidence to demonstrate the lawful origin of the funds used in the purchases.
Despite this, the High Court initially rejected their explanations, citing technical grounds, including claims that the Ugandan documents were unauthenticated.
In delivering the Supreme Court judgment, Justice Kudya criticised the NPA’s approach, stating that it relied heavily on conjecture and lacked any concrete evidence.
“The first respondent did not know nor ascertain the income of the appellants at the time the properties were acquired and transferred,” he said.
“The assertion that the appellants’ income was less than US$100 000 was plucked from thin air.”
The NPA, represented by K Mafute and Ms Mollyn Mutamangira, had based its application on a “tip-off” alleging that Robert Kwesiga was engaged in unspecified criminal activity during his tenure in Zimbabwe.
But the Supreme Court dismissed the allegation as speculative and lacking in substance.
“The suspicion must be based on objective facts,” Justice Kudya stated.
“What the first respondent presented was an inchoate or unparticularised suspicion or hunch from a tip-off and not specific and articulable facts upon which rational inferences could be drawn.”
The High Court was also faulted for rejecting the couple’s documentation on procedural grounds, noting that the evidence presented was more than adequate to establish the source of their wealth.
In his ruling, Justice Kudya concluded that the requirements set out in section 37C of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act, which govern the issuance of unexplained wealth orders, had not been met in this case.
“The court a quo (lower court) granted the application for an unexplained wealth order in circumstances where the cumulative requirements set out in section 37C of the Act were not met,” said Justice Kudya.
The Supreme Court ordered that the unexplained wealth order be set aside and the NPA’s application dismissed with costs.
