Wakilii

Nicholas K. Ssali v Sanlam General Insurance and Centenary Rural Development Bank (Miscellaneous Application 3005 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 156 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to issue third-party notice arising from civil suit for professional negligence
Decision
Leave granted to issue third-party notice against insurer

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 High Court granted leave to the defendant valuer to issue a third-party notice against his professional indemnity insurer in a suit alleging professional negligence. The court found that the applicant had prima facie insurance coverage at the time of the transaction, the subject matter between defendant and third party was the same as the original cause of action, and joining the insurer would enable conclusive determination of all issues.

Outcome

Leave granted to issue third-party notice against insurer

Facts

The applicant, a valuer, provided valuation services to Centenary Rural Development Bank under a retainer agreement dated 27 August 2019. The bank relied on the applicant's valuation report dated 22 July 2020 to disburse a loan to Nansubuga Allen Shifah, who subsequently defaulted. The bank filed Civil Suit No. 0375 of 2023 against the applicant claiming professional negligence. In his written statement of defence, the applicant pleaded entitlement to indemnity or contribution from Sanlam General Insurance, with whom he held professional indemnity insurance covering the period 23 March 2020 to 21 March 2021. The applicant sought leave to issue a third-party notice against the insurer.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has proven grounds to warrant the grant of a third-party notice.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant granted leave to file and serve a Third Party Notice upon the 1st Respondent in accordance with Order 1 rule 14(3), (4) and (5) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Third-party notice must be filed within fifteen (15) days from the date of the order granting leave.
  • Costs of this Application shall abide by the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Third-Party Procedure — Requirements for Grant of Leave
For leave to issue a third-party notice to be granted under Order 1 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the defendant must establish that: (i) there are sufficient grounds to join the third party; (ii) the subject matter between defendant and third party is the same as between plaintiff and defendant; (iii) the defendant claims indemnity or contribution from the third party; (iv) the plaintiff will not suffer prejudice; and (v) it is in the interest of justice.
Civil Procedure — Third-Party Procedure — Scope and Purpose
Third-party procedure is confined to cases where a defendant claims indemnity or contribution from a person not party to the suit, and is a means for trial of questions of liability to contribute or indemnify, not for joining a third party as a defendant. A third party is not concerned with the plaintiff's claim but with contribution to the defendant.
Insurance — Professional Indemnity — Joinder of Insurer as Third Party
Where a defendant professional has prima facie insurance coverage for the transaction giving rise to the plaintiff's claim, the court may grant leave to join the insurer as a third party to enable conclusive determination of all issues in the main suit and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (3)

  • NBS Television v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Miscellaneous Application No. 421 of 2012)
  • Sango Bay Estates (1971) EA 17
  • Zanfra v Duncan & Anor [1969] THCD 135

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nicholas K. Ssali v Sanlam General Insurance and Centenary Rural Development Bank (Miscellaneous Application 3005 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 156 (20 April 2026)
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.