Wakilii

Fireworks Advertising Uganda Limited v CIC General Insurance Uganda Limited (Application No. 07 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGIAT 7 · 2024 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the decision of the Insurance Regulatory Authority dated 30 April 2024
Decision
Appeal allowed; Respondent ordered to pay the claim within 30 days

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 Tribunal held that the Applicant's claim was payable. Theft occurred within the meaning of the insurance policy as evidenced by police reports and witness testimony confirming forcible entry through a broken window latch. The Respondent's failure to specify a timeframe for notification of material alterations in the policy, combined with the issuance of an endorsement policy without altered terms after receiving notice of relocation, negated the argument that the relocation constituted material non-disclosure justifying repudiation of the claim. The appeal was allowed and the Respondent ordered to pay the claim within 30 days.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; Respondent ordered to pay the claim within 30 days

Facts

Fireworks Advertising Uganda Limited held an All Risks insurance policy with CIC General Insurance covering computers and equipment from 7 September 2021 to 6 September 2022. The Applicant relocated from Kololo to Naguru between late December 2021 and 7 January 2022. On 3 January 2022, during the relocation, thieves broke into the new premises at Ntinda Road, Naguru, stealing 7 iMac computers and 3 laptops valued at UGX 76,510,897. The Applicant notified the Respondent of the relocation on 7 January 2022, six days after the move began. The Respondent issued an endorsement policy on 10 January 2022 without altering terms or premiums. The Respondent denied the claim on grounds that there was no theft within the policy meaning, the Applicant breached the geographical area clause by relocating, and notification was late constituting material non-disclosure. The Insurance Regulatory Authority ruled that burglary constituted theft but that the Applicant breached the contract by failing to notify timely, justifying denial. Both parties appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant's claim is payable under the insurance policy?
  2. Whether theft occurred within the meaning of Clause 10 of the insurance policy requiring actual forcible visible damage to the premises?
  3. Whether the Applicant failed to disclose material facts by not notifying the Respondent of the relocation of premises in a timely manner?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay the claim presented by the Applicant within 30 days.
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Insurance — All Risks Policy — Theft — Definition of Theft Requiring Actual Forcible Visible Damage
Under an All Risks insurance policy requiring theft following office/housebreaking causing actual forcible visible damage to premises, even minimal damage such as a broken window latch constitutes forcible entry sufficient to satisfy the policy requirement of forcible visible damage.
Evidence — Expert Witness — Qualification and Admissibility
An expert witness must possess appropriate expertise gained from either a field of study or practical experience before a court admits their evidence. Where an expert witness admits lacking qualifications to conduct the relevant investigation, their testimony is unreliable and should not be relied upon.
Evidence — Hearsay — Photographic Evidence — Authentication Requirement
Photographic evidence must be authenticated by the photographer who took the photographs or by a person present when they were taken who can testify to their accuracy. Evidence from a witness who did not visit the premises and cannot attest to the authenticity or accuracy of photographs constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
Insurance — Material Non-Disclosure — Duty to Notify — Reasonable Time
Where an insurance policy requires notification of material alterations but does not specify a strict timeframe, notification within six days of the alteration may constitute reasonable time. The insurer's issuance of an endorsement policy without altering terms or premiums after receiving notification negates the argument that the alteration posed a material change to the risk.
Insurance — Utmost Good Faith — Material Facts — Relocation of Premises
Insurance contracts are governed by the principle of utmost good faith requiring disclosure of material facts. However, where policy wording regarding material alteration is ambiguous and not specific on timelines or definition, the contra proferentem rule requires interpretation in favour of the insured against the drafter.
Contract Law — Interpretation — Contra Proferentem Rule — Insurance Policies
Where the wording of an insurance policy is ambiguous, the contra proferentem rule requires that the wording be interpreted against the drafter of the contract (the insurer) and in favour of the other contracting party (the insured). Insurance policies should be couched in plain language and be clear and specific.
Insurance — Claims — Reasonable Period for Investigation and Payment
Although there is no statutory period within which to pay insurance claims, claims must be discharged within a reasonable period. What constitutes a reasonable period is a matter to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. An eight-month investigation period may be considered inordinate and can infer bad faith on the part of the insurer.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (20)

  • Vambeco Enterprises Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 265 of 2014)
  • Dino Services Ltd v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (1989) 1 All ER 422
  • Nowak v. United Serv. Auto. Association
  • National Insurance Corporation Ltd v. Kakugu Sylvan
  • Kabaco (U) Ltd v Turyahikayo Bonny (Civil Suit No. 14 of 2013)
  • Des Raj Sharma v R [1953] EA 512
  • Sejjaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (SCCA No. 12 of 1985)
  • Uganda v Sebyala & Others [1969] EA 204
  • Uganda v Kato Kajubi [2012] UGCA 36
  • Munyindo Nsiimire v Gordon Sentiba & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2008)
  • Carter v Boehm (1766) 97 ER 1162
  • Orient Insurance Brokers Ltd v Transocean (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 55 of 1995)
  • Zurich Insurance Plc v Niramax Group Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 590
  • Pan Atlantic Insurance Co. v. Pine top Insurance Co. (1994)
  • Bruwer v Nova Risk Partners Ltd 2011 SA Merc LJ 135
  • Jerrier v Outsurance Insurance Company Limited [2015] 3 All SA 701 (KZP)
  • Berkshire Assets (West London) Ltd v AXA Insurance UK Plc [2021] EWHC
  • Law, Guarantee, Trust and Accident Society v Munich Re-insurance Co [1912] 1 Ch 138
  • R v Silverlock [1894] 2 QB 766
  • APA v MOIL (IAT Application No. 002 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Fireworks Advertising Uganda Limited v CIC General Insurance Uganda Limited (Application No. 07 of 2024) [2024] UGIAT 7 (8 November 2024)
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.