Wakilii

Salini Construttori S.P.A v Jubilee Insurance Company of Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 109 of 2016)

High Court · [2019] UGCOMMC 27 · 2019 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of marine cargo insurance contract
Decision
Plaintiff awarded indemnity payment plus general damages with interest

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 Marine Cargo Insurance Policy Exh D.2 was the operative policy providing all-risk coverage. A subsequent policy (Exh D.3) purporting to introduce exemption clauses and alter jurisdiction was invalid for want of regulatory approval under the Insurance Act s.35. The insurer's argument that the plaintiff concealed the vessel's age failed because the plaintiff honestly declared the age unknown in the questionnaire and the error and omissions clause protected unintentional omissions. Where a Guinean court declared the cargo a total loss and ordered it recycled, the insurer was liable to indemnify the plaintiff for the cargo value plus general damages.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded indemnity payment plus general damages with interest

Facts

The plaintiff, contracted to construct Bujagali Hydro Power Plant in 2007, purchased 5,021.60 metric tons of reinforcing steel from Turkey. Before shipment, plaintiff procured marine cargo insurance from defendant covering transit from Turkey to Njeru, Jinja. The cargo was loaded at Nemrut Port, Turkey on 18 July 2009 aboard M/V EVR for Mombasa. Instead of sailing through the Suez Canal, the vessel diverted to Conakry, Guinea due to engine problems. The cargo remained exposed to moisture for over 130 days. A Guinean court ordered inspection in February 2010. Laboratory analysis showed the steel bars degraded and unusable. On 5 March 2010 the Guinean court declared the cargo unfit and ordered it recycled. A joint survey by representatives of both parties on 27 March 2010 confirmed total loss. Defendant refused indemnity, arguing the policy had been replaced, the vessel's age had been concealed, and loss was not covered.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a policy of insurance and if so, which policy and what were its terms?
  2. Whether under the policy the plaintiff is entitled to indemnity?
  3. Whether the plaintiff suffered any loss?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.
  • Defendant to pay US$2,686,556 being the value of the cargo.
  • Defendant to pay US$200,000 as general damages.
  • Interest on US$2,686,556 at 8% per annum from 15 August 2009 till payment in full.
  • Interest on US$200,000 at 6% per annum from date of judgment till payment in full.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Insurance Law — Marine Cargo Insurance — Validity of Policy — Alteration of Policy Terms Without Regulatory Approval
Where an insurer issues a marine cargo insurance policy and thereafter attempts to replace it with a revised policy introducing exemption clauses and altering jurisdiction, the revised policy is invalid if issued without prior approval of the Insurance Regulatory Authority as required by the Insurance Act s.35. The original policy remains operative where the insurer has issued debit notes under that policy number and the proceed date in subsequent endorsements refers to the original policy date.
Insurance Law — Marine Cargo Insurance — Non-Disclosure — Error and Omissions Clause
An error and omissions clause in a marine cargo insurance policy protects the insured from unintentional error, omission or oversight in information provided in questionnaires, provided the same is communicated to the insurer as soon as known and any reasonable additional premium paid. Where the insured honestly declares information as unknown rather than concealing it, the insurer cannot rely on non-disclosure to vitiate the policy.
Insurance Law — Marine Cargo Insurance — Institute Classification Clause — Age of Vessel
Under the Institute Classification Clause, vessels exceeding prescribed age limits can be insured subject to notification and payment of additional premium. Where the insured truthfully states in the questionnaire that the vessel age is unknown and the insurer accepts this and issues the policy, the insurer cannot subsequently refuse indemnity on grounds of the vessel's age.
Insurance Law — All-Risk Policy — Total Loss — Foreign Court Order
Where cargo insured under an all-risk marine cargo policy is declared unfit for its intended purpose by a foreign court following laboratory analysis and the insured's and insurer's representatives jointly agree the cargo constitutes a total loss, the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured notwithstanding the insurer's disagreement with the foreign court's findings.
Contract Law — Breach of Contract — General Damages — Insurance Claims
In insurance claims, general damages for breach of contract include the direct and probable consequences of the insurer's wrongful refusal to indemnify, including legal expenses, sourcing alternative goods, and delay penalties. The award takes into account that the insured paid premium and ought to have been indemnified promptly upon notification of loss.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kampala District Land Board and Another v Venansio Babweyana (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • James Fredrick Nsubuga v Attorney General (HCCS No. 13 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (SCCA No. 17 of 1992)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (SCCA No. 16 of 1995)
  • Superior Construction & Engineering Ltd v Notay Engineering Ltd (HCCS No. 24 of 1992)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Salini Construttori S.P.A v Jubilee Insurance Company of Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 109 of 2016) [2019] UGCommC 27 (14 February 2019)
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.