Wakilii

UAP Old Mutual Insurance Co. (U) Ltd v Africa Reinsurance Corporation (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2025)

Tribunal · [2025] UGIAT 1 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Tribunal ruling dismissing Application No. 11 of 2024 for failure to file pre-trial documents
Decision
Application for review granted; matter remitted for hearing on merits with directions for filing of pre-trial documents

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 Tribunal held that the applicant's failure to file pre-trial documents did not constitute an error apparent on the record arising from non-service of the respondent's response, as the applicant was aware the response had been filed and made no attempt to obtain it from the Tribunal or opposing counsel. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant established sufficient cause for review based on counsel's negligence, which should not be visited upon the innocent litigant. The application for review was granted, and the applicant was given five days to file pre-trial documents.

Outcome

Application for review granted; matter remitted for hearing on merits with directions for filing of pre-trial documents

Facts

The applicant filed Application No. 11 of 2024 before the Insurance Appeals Tribunal on 20 November 2024, challenging a decision of the Insurance Regulatory Authority. The respondent filed its response on 5 December 2024 but allegedly did not serve it on the applicant. The Tribunal issued directions on 9 December 2024 requiring parties to file trial documents by 3 January 2025 and appear for hearing on 9 January 2025. The respondent served its response on the applicant on 8 January 2025, the eve of the hearing. On 9 January 2025, the Tribunal dismissed Application No. 11 of 2024 under Order 17 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to file required documents. The applicant then brought this application for review, arguing the dismissal was an error apparent on the record and that counsel's negligence in failing to obtain the response and file documents should not be visited upon the innocent litigant.

Issues

  1. Whether the application satisfies the grounds for review of the Tribunal's ruling dismissing Application No. 11 of 2024.
  2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought, including reinstatement of the dismissed Application and costs.

Orders

  • Application succeeds.
  • Applicant granted 5 days from the date of this Order to file pre-trial documents including Trial Bundle and Witness Statements.
  • Respondent given 5 days from receipt of Applicant's documents to file its pre-trial documents.
  • Costs of the application to be met by the Applicant.
  • Any party dissatisfied may appeal to the High Court within 30 days from the date of this Decision.

Rules and key headnotes

Review — Functus Officio — Tribunal's Continuing Jurisdiction
A tribunal is not functus officio and retains continuing jurisdiction to review its own decisions where review is permitted by statute or rules, notwithstanding the general principle that a court becomes functus officio after rendering a decision.
Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
An error apparent on the face of the record is one which is self-evident and does not require a long-drawn process of reasoning to detect. Where an error on a substantial point of law stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record is made out. An error which has to be established by reasoning or on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
Service of Pleadings — Duty to Serve Defence/Response
It is obligatory on the part of a defendant to serve a copy of the written statement of defence or response on the plaintiff or applicant, particularly where the defence or response contains a counterclaim or cross-claim which legally is a claim in its own right. Failure to serve process where service is required is a failure which goes to the root of any conception of proper procedure in litigation.
Review — Sufficient Cause — Negligence of Counsel
Negligence of counsel ought not to be visited on an innocent litigant unless the litigant is privy to the default or the default results from failure on the part of the litigant to give the advocate due instructions. Where an applicant instructed a lawyer in time, the applicant's rights should not be blocked on grounds of the lawyer's negligence or omission to comply with requirements of law. However, mistakes of counsel amount to sufficient reason only if they amount to an error of judgment but not inordinate delay or negligence to observe plain requirements of law.
Review — Sufficient Cause — Factors for Exercise of Discretion
In determining whether to grant an application for review on grounds of sufficient cause, the court must consider: (a) whether the applicant has shown sufficient reason related to inability or failure to take a particular step within prescribed time; (b) that administration of justice requires disputes be investigated and decided on merits and errors should not necessarily debar a litigant from pursuit of rights; (c) whether mistakes of counsel amount to error of judgment rather than inordinate delay or negligence; (d) whether the party was guilty of dilatory conduct in instructing the lawyer; and (e) whether the applicant instructed a lawyer in time.
Pre-Trial Documents — Duty to File — Access to Opponent's Pleadings
Where a party is aware that an opponent has filed a response or defence on the court record, the party has a duty to take steps to gain access to that response either from the tribunal or from opposing counsel in order to comply with directions to file pre-trial documents. A party cannot justify failure to file pre-trial documents solely on the basis that the opponent's response was not directly served, where the party made no attempt to obtain the response from available sources.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (24)

  • Bagumirabingi John & Ors v Hoima Town Council [2001-2005] HCB 116
  • Jivanji & Another [1930] KLR 41
  • Godfrey Kitto v Robinah Namutebi Miiro (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2007)
  • Birungi and 3 Others v Kusemererwa and 2 Others (Revision Application No. 1 of 2021)
  • Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE) v. Attorney General
  • F.X. Mubuuke v. Uganda Electricity Board
  • Edison Kanyabwera v. Pastori Tumwebaze
  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v. DFCU Bank
  • Herman Ssemakula v. Ivan Asiimwe
  • Jersey Evening Post Limited vs. Ai Thani
  • Laura Nakubulwa & 2 Ors vs. Angelina Kagere Lubowa
  • Nyamogo and Nyamogo Advocates v. Kago
  • Igga Anyi Godfrey & Ors vs. The Registered Trustees of Pentecostal Assemblies of God
  • Imaniraguha v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 2770 of 2023)
  • Farm Inputs Care Centre Limited v Klein Karoo Seeds Marketing (Pty) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 0861 of 2021)
  • Nicholas Roussos v G. H. Virani & Anor (HCCS No. 360 of 1982)
  • Bamanye Fazil V Nankunda Rose
  • Mugo v Wanjiri [1970] EA 481
  • Njagi v Munyiri [1975] EA 179
  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)
  • Zam Nalumansi v Sulaiman Lule (SCCA No. 2 of 1992)
  • Mary Kyamulabi v Ahmed Zirondemu (CACA No. 41 of 1979)
  • Andrew Bamanya v Sham Sherali Zaver (CACA No. 70 of 2001)
  • Tiberio Okeny & Another v Attorney General & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

UAP Old Mutual Insurance Co. (U) Ltd v Africa Reinsurance Corporation (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2025) [2025] UGIAT 1 (24 February 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.