Adotu v National Insurance Corporation (Civil Suit No. 717 of 1995)
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
Held that an employee under a group retirement benefits scheme administered between his employer and an insurer has no direct contractual relationship with the insurer entitling him to sue for breach. The contractual privity exists between employer and insurer. The employee's remedy for non-payment or mismanagement of contributions lies with the employer, not the insurer. Additionally, where an employee terminated before pensionable age, he is entitled only to surrender value, not pension payments.
Outcome
Plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs to the defendant
Facts
Between 1968 and 1987, the plaintiff was employed by Jinja Municipal Council and later Uganda Cement Industry. Both employers operated retirement benefits schemes with the defendant insurer. The plaintiff and his employers contributed to the scheme (5% employee, 15% employer). In 1987, Uganda Cement Industry terminated the plaintiff's employment. On 28 May 1996, the defendant paid Uganda Cement Industry shs 13,403 as the plaintiff's entitlement under the scheme. The plaintiff rejected this as inadequate and sued, claiming the amount failed to reflect the time value of his contributions. The plaintiff initially sued both the insurer and Uganda Cement Industry but later withdrew the suit against the employer. The plaintiff sought an accounting of all contributions paid and payment reflecting currency devaluation.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant under the retirement benefits scheme.
- If the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant, what is he entitled to under the scheme.
- What remedies, if any, are available to the plaintiff.
Orders
- Suit dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the defendant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Currency Reform Statute s.1
- Currency Reform Statute s.2
Cases cited (1)
- Tweddle and Atkinson
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.