Wakilii

Sanlam Life Insurance (Uganda) Limited v Minet Uganda Insurance Brokers (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application No. 950 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 374 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to appeal or validation of appeal against the decision of the Insurance Appeals Tribunal on grounds of fact or mixed law and fact
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent; no tenable appeal before the court

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 dismissed the application for leave to appeal the Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision on grounds of fact or mixed law and fact. The Court held that Regulation 27(3) of the Insurance Appeals Tribunal Regulations mandates that appeals to the High Court may only be made on questions of law, not mixed law and fact. The applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for filing the appeal out of time, as the notice of appeal was filed on 28th August 2024, well beyond the statutory thirty-day period which expired on 1st July 2024. The Court found that there was no tenable appeal before it.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent; no tenable appeal before the court

Facts

Sanlam Life Insurance (Uganda) Limited provided medical insurance cover to Ernst & Young employees through Minet Uganda Insurance Brokers. An employee's child was diagnosed with profound hearing impairment requiring cochlear implants on 10th May 2023. Sanlam refused to pay the claim, alleging concealment of a pre-existing condition at enrolment on 28th April 2023. The Insurance Regulatory Authority Complaints Bureau and subsequently the Insurance Appeals Tribunal both decided in favour of Minet on 31st May 2024. Sanlam filed a notice of appeal on 28th August 2024, well beyond the statutory thirty-day period. Sanlam sought leave to appeal on grounds of fact and mixed law and fact, arguing that the Tribunal failed to properly evaluate evidence. The appeal had not been filed in the High Court within time, and no good cause was shown for the delay.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has raised sufficient grounds for the grant of leave or the validation of the appeal against the findings on matters of fact or mixed law and fact from the ruling of the Insurance Tribunal in Application No. 06 of 2024.
  2. Whether the affidavit in support of the application is argumentative and prolix and ought to be struck out.
  3. Whether the appeal was filed within the statutory thirty-day timeframe.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Insurance Appeals Tribunal — Statutory Appeal to High Court — Scope of Appeal
Appeals from the Insurance Appeals Tribunal to the High Court may be made on questions of law only, as mandated by Regulation 27(3) of the Insurance Appeals Tribunal Regulations, 2019, which requires that the notice of appeal shall state the question of law that forms the appeal.
Time Limits — Statutory Appeals — Calculation of Time
Time limits set by statutes for filing appeals are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities and must be strictly complied with. An appeal from the Insurance Appeals Tribunal must be filed within thirty days from the date of communication of the decision, and this period commences the day after the decision is delivered.
Extension of Time — Leave to Appeal Out of Time — Good Cause
Where an appellant has failed to file a notice of appeal within the statutory period, the court has discretion to extend time under Order 51 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, but such discretion will only be exercised where the applicant demonstrates good cause for the failure. Enlargement of time is not granted as a matter of right but on a case-by-case basis upon proper analysis of the facts.
Affidavits — Argumentative Affidavits — Effect and Treatment
An affidavit should be confined to facts and not contain arguments or matters of law. Where parts of an affidavit are argumentative or contrary to law, the court may reject those parts and consider only those parts which conform to the rules on affidavit evidence, rather than striking out the entire affidavit.
Electronic Filing — ECCMIS — Date of Filing
Under the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS), a case is deemed to have been filed when the system registers the case and automatically allocates it a registration number. The filing date is determined by when the system registered the case, not when the court subsequently endorsed the document.
Appeals — Right of Appeal — Creature of Statute
The right of appeal is a creature of statute and must be given expressly. There is no inherent right of appeal, and appeals are governed by the specific statutory provisions and procedural rules applicable to the particular tribunal or court from which the appeal is brought.
Statutory Interpretation — Mandatory vs Directory Provisions — Use of 'May'
The role of court is not to rewrite the law or infer fanciful or extraneous interpretations into plain provisions of the law, but rather to interpret and apply the meaning reasonably deductible from the provisions. The word 'may' in a statutory provision limiting appeals to questions of law only does not create a discretion to appeal on other grounds, but rather gives the aggrieved party a choice whether to appeal or not.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (22)

  • Crane Bank Limited (in receivership) v Sudhir Rupaleria & another (Civil Appeal No. 252 of 2019)
  • Attorney General v Uluoch [1972] EA 392
  • Mukisa Biscuits v Western Distributors [1969] EA 696
  • Bank of Uganda & another v Kaweesi Sulaiman and 26 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1047 of 2022)
  • Re Bukeni Gyabi Fred (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 63 of 1999)
  • Col. Dr. Besigye Kiiza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta & Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Assanand & Son Uganda Ltd v East African Records Ltd [1959] EA 360
  • Caspair Ltd v Harry Grandy [1962] EA 414
  • Paulo K. Ssemogerere and Z. Olum v. Attorney General
  • Zola v Ralli Bros Ltd [1969] EA 691
  • Yona Kanyomozi v Motor Mart (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 8 of 1989)
  • Male H. Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2018)
  • M. Buwule v Asuman Mugyenyi (Civil Application No. 36 of 2019)
  • Livingstone Kayaga Kizito v Charles Waligo (Miscellaneous Application No. 80 of 2012)
  • Heritage Oil and Gas Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2021)
  • Tight Security Ltd v Chartis Uganda Insurance Company Limited and another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2014)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v K Files Limited (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2022)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Balondemu David (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2023)
  • Bank of Uganda v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2020)
  • Kampala Capital City Authority v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007)
  • Muzamil Ayile v Rose Tarapke & 6 Others (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 24 of 2013)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sanlam Life Insurance (Uganda) Limited v Minet Uganda Insurance Brokers (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application No. 950 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 374 (15 October 2025
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.