Wakilii

Microcare Insurance Ltd v Insurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda (Civil Suit No. 684 of 2015)

High Court · [2017] UGCOMMC 47 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection that the plaintiff's suit is time-barred under the law of limitation
Decision
Plaintiff's suit rejected as time-barred

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 court held that the plaintiff's claim is founded in tort (breach of statutory duty and misfeasance in public office) against a scheduled corporation and must be brought within two years under section 3 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap. 72. The cause of action arose in 2009 when the defendant refused to grant the plaintiff a licence to carry on insurance business. The suit filed in 2015 was time-barred and rejected with costs.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit rejected as time-barred

Facts

The plaintiff, Microcare Insurance Ltd, commenced insurance operations in 2005 and obtained licences to operate successfully until 2009, when the defendant Insurance Regulatory Authority refused to grant the plaintiff a licence to continue writing new insurance business. The refusal was based on an audit report which the plaintiff alleged was fraught with irregularities and inconsistencies. The plaintiff challenged the audit findings and alleged that the defendant acted unlawfully in several respects: relying on a defective audit report, depriving the plaintiff of a right to an independent inspection, acting in violation of court orders, refusing to arbitrate disputes between the plaintiff and its reinsurers, and filing a winding-up petition in 2014. The plaintiff filed suit in October 2015, claiming general damages for loss of business on grounds of misfeasance in public office and breach of statutory duty. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit is time-barred.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by the law of limitation under section 3 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap. 72.
  2. When the cause of action arose for purposes of computing the limitation period.
  3. What the nature of the plaintiff's cause of action is (whether tort, contract, or administrative law).

Orders

  • The plaintiff's suit is time-barred and rejected under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Actions Against Scheduled Corporations — Two-Year Period for Tort Claims
An action founded on tort against a scheduled corporation under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap. 72 must be brought within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose.
Tort Law — Breach of Statutory Duty — Nature as a Tortious Claim
A breach of statutory duty is a tort at common law and entitles a plaintiff upon proof to damages or an injunction or both. Breach of statutory provisions created for the benefit of an individual or class constitutes a tortious act.
Tort Law — Misfeasance in Public Office — Essential Ingredients
The tort of misfeasance in public office requires as an essential ingredient the presence of malice in the exercise or purported exercise of statutory power, including situations where an official acts beyond jurisdiction with knowledge of that fact or is actuated by reasons collateral to and not authorised by the rules of conduct by which he is bound.
Civil Procedure — Rejection of Plaint — Suit Time-Barred on Face of Plaint
Under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, including the law of limitation.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Appropriate Remedy for Unlawful Administrative Decisions
The appropriate remedy for the unlawful exercise of administrative or statutory power by a licensing authority lies in the realm of public law and judicial review of administrative action. An application for judicial review must be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds first arose, unless the court considers there is good reason for extension.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Accrual Date — Refusal of Licence as Trigger
Where a plaintiff's claim for loss of income and loss of business flows from the denial of a regulatory licence, the cause of action arises on the date of the refusal of the licence. Claims for consequential loss do not constitute separate causes of action but are consequences of the original tortious act.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (5)

  • Onegi Obel and Another v Attorney General and Another (HCCS No. 66 of 2002)
  • Charles Lubowa and Others v Makerere University (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2011)
  • Microcare Insurance Limited v Insurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 442 of 2014)
  • Dawson v Bingley Urban Council [1911] 2 KB 149
  • Vermeulen v Attorney General and Others [1986] LRC (Const) 786

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Microcare Insurance Ltd v Insurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda (Civil Suit No. 684 of 2015) [2017] UGCommC 47 (12 May 2017)
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.