Dudi Mining Activities v Central African Building Society

On 19 November 2018, the Police applied for and the Magistrate Court granted a Warrant of Search and Seizure in respect of the applicant's bank account number 1006358897 with the respondent (CABS). On 11 December 2018, the High Court granted a Provisional Order directing that the account be frozen pending investigations and prosecution under reference number IR 11 305, docket number D.R 74/09/18. The freeze was based on suspicions that funds procured by fraud had been deposited into this account. The applicant sought an order under Rule 226 of the High Court Rules 1971 for removal of the freeze/restriction on its account, arguing that a Warrant for Search and Seizure is only valid for 21 days unless the matter is brought before a Magistrate upon expiry of that period. The applicant had not approached the police officer responsible for the seizure or produced a receipt confirming the seizure.

• Whether the applicant was entitled to approach the High Court directly under Rule 226 for removal of the account freeze without first following the procedure under section 58A(2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act
• Whether the preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the defective nature of the application should be upheld
• What is the proper procedure for recovering seized articles when no prosecution has been initiated within the prescribed time period

1. The preliminary point is upheld. 2. The application is dismissed. 3. The applicant is ordered to pay costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.

Where an article (including a bank account) has been seized pursuant to a Warrant of Search and Seizure, and a party seeks the return or unfreezing of such article on the basis that no prosecution has been initiated within the prescribed time, that party must follow the procedure laid out in section 58A(2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9.07]. This procedure requires the party to first approach the police officer responsible for the seizure and produce a receipt confirming the seizure. Only upon the failure of the police officer to release the item may the party resort to litigation. A direct application to the High Court without following this statutory procedure is fatally defective and will be dismissed on a preliminary point.

The court observed that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act which supports the contention that a Warrant for Search and Seizure is only valid for 21 days as the legal duration of the basis for a freeze. While this statement was made in the context of rejecting the applicant's argument, it serves as guidance on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions regarding the validity period of such warrants.

This case clarifies the proper procedure that must be followed by parties seeking the return of seized articles (including frozen bank accounts) under section 58A of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9.07]. It establishes that parties cannot bypass the statutory procedure by approaching the High Court directly under Rule 226. The case reinforces the principle that where a statute prescribes a specific procedure for obtaining relief, that procedure must be followed before resorting to general court processes. It is significant for banking law and criminal procedure as it defines the limits of when account holders can seek court intervention for frozen accounts linked to criminal investigations.