Wakilii

Icea Lion General Insurance Company Limited v Shark Media Limited (Appeal 2 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGIAT 1 · 2022 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from a decision of the Complaints Bureau of the Insurance Regulatory Authority
Decision
Appeal struck out for being filed out of time; IRA decision upheld; appellant ordered to pay the claim with interest and costs.

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 Insurance Appeals Tribunal struck out an appeal filed by an insurer against a decision of the Insurance Regulatory Authority on the ground that the appeal was filed outside the one-month time limit prescribed by section 137(1) of the Insurance Act 2017 and regulation 9(3) of the Insurance Appeals Tribunal Regulations 2019. The Tribunal held that the time limits are mandatory, are a matter of substantive law, and must be strictly complied with. The Tribunal found that a letter expressing dissatisfaction with the IRA decision did not constitute a valid appeal in the prescribed form, and that the appellant's delay of almost a year extinguished the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Outcome

Appeal struck out for being filed out of time; IRA decision upheld; appellant ordered to pay the claim with interest and costs.

Facts

The respondent purchased an all-risk insurance policy from the appellant. On 10 April 2019, the respondent suffered a power surge at its business premises which damaged a double sheet sensor in an SM 74 printing machine. The respondent filed a claim for USD 15,400 for replacement of the sensors. The appellant commissioned an external loss assessor who recommended payment of UGX 51,980,267. Dissatisfied, the appellant conducted an internal assessment seven months later which concluded that only USD 4,200 was payable. The respondent complained to the Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA), which commissioned an independent investigation. On 25 November 2021, IRA ruled out fraud and ordered the appellant to honour the claim as presented. The appellant expressed dissatisfaction by letter dated 1 December 2021 but did not file a formal appeal until 6 October 2022, after IRA issued an ultimatum threatening enforcement action.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal?
  2. Whether the report of IRA fraud Unit should be set aside for non-compliance with the rules of Natural Justice?
  3. Whether the Respondent's claim of USD 15,400 is payable?

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out.
  • The decision by the Insurance Regulatory Authority is upheld.
  • The Appellant is ordered to pay the claim presented by the Respondent.
  • The Appellant is ordered to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 25 January 2022 until payment in full.
  • Costs of this appeal are awarded to the respondent.
  • Should there be failure by the Appellant to adhere to the orders, IRA is directed to take such action as may be appropriate under the Insurance Act No. 6 of 2017 against the Appellant to ensure compliance with these orders.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Appeals — Time Limits — Mandatory Compliance
Time limits for filing appeals from administrative decisions are mandatory, are a matter of substantive law and not mere technicalities, and must be strictly complied with. Where a statute prescribes a time limit for appeal and contains no enabling provision to extend time, failure to appeal within the prescribed period extinguishes the appellate tribunal's jurisdiction.
Insurance — Appeals — Form and Procedure — Prescribed Requirements
An appeal from a decision of the Insurance Regulatory Authority must be filed in the form prescribed by the Insurance Appeals Tribunal Regulations 2019. A letter expressing dissatisfaction with a decision and stating an intention to appeal does not constitute a valid appeal where the regulations prescribe a specific form and require the appeal to clearly state the grounds on which it is brought.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Extinguishment by Delay
Where an appeal is filed outside the time prescribed by statute and the statute contains no provision empowering the tribunal to enlarge time, the jurisdiction of the tribunal is extinguished as far as the matter is concerned and the appeal is incompetent.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Insurance Act No. 6 of 2017 s.136
  • Insurance Act No. 6 of 2017 s.137
  • Insurance Act No. 6 of 2017 s.137(1)
  • Insurance Act No. 6 of 2017 s.45
  • Insurance Appeals Tribunal Regulations 2019 r.9
  • Insurance Appeals Tribunal Regulations 2019 r.9(1)
  • Insurance Appeals Tribunal Regulations 2019 r.9(3)
  • Insurance Appeals Tribunal Regulations 2019 r.9(4)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003

Cases cited (1)

  • Mugerwa Fred v Sembabule District Local Government (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal Appeal No. 23 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Icea Lion General Insurance Company Limited v Shark Media Limited (Appeal 2 of 2022) [2022] UGIAT 1 (19 December 2022)
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.