Insurance Appeals Tribunal Holds Insurer Liable for Premiums Paid to Its Agent Where It Accepted Earlier Payments Through the Same Agent; Awards Interest, Special and General Damages for Premiums With
Sunday Abubakah v Jubilee Life Insurance Company of Uganda, Application No. 32 of 2025
Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Uganda at Kampala. Before Rita Namakiika Nangono (Chairperson), George Steven Okotha, Solome Mayinja Luwaga, John Bbale Mayanja and Harriette Nabasirye Paminda Kasirye. Delivered 4 September 2026.
The Insurance Appeals Tribunal heard an appeal from the Complaints Bureau of the Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA). A policyholder lost premiums to a dishonest agent and waited nearly three years for a refund. The decision sets out when an insurer owes interest and damages for holding premiums without a contractual basis.
Facts
In November 2022, Sunday Abubakah (the Applicant) took an eleven year life policy with Jubilee Life Insurance Company of Uganda (the Respondent) at a monthly premium of UGX 500,000. He paid the initial deposit and later premiums through the Respondent’s agent, Kabali Ismail. The Respondent credited the deposit but the agent did not remit the later payments. The agent forged a letter changing premiums to quarterly and forged a receipt for UGX 1,500,000. The Applicant’s telephone number on the Respondent’s system was altered, so he received no notice of default.
The policy lapsed on 1 March 2023 after the 90 day grace period. The Respondent relied on Clause 5 of the policy, which required payment to its offices, bank accounts or company mobile money. The Complaints Bureau of the Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA) held that the policy had lapsed and ordered a refund of UGX 4,000,000. It declined damages and interest. The Respondent paid on 12 November 2025, and the Applicant appealed to the Tribunal.
Legal Representation
Applicant: Mark Kizza of Arigo & Co Advocates.
Respondent: Ssenkungu Simon Peter and Nkeera Edna of Cristal Advocates.
Issues for Determination
1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to interest and damages.
2. What remedies are available to the parties.
The Tribunal decided both issues together.
Submissions
Applicant. Counsel argued the Respondent kept the Applicant’s money and converted it, citing Ajaib Transport Limited v Verma. He said the agent took UGX 5,500,000 of the UGX 6,000,000 paid. He sought UGX 2,000,000 as special damages, provable by oral testimony under John Eletu v Uganda Airlines Corporation and Akware Caroline Osilo v Gaaga Enterprises Ltd. He sought UGX 5,000,000 as general damages for delay, noting the 14 day complaint timeline in the Insurance Internal Dispute Resolution Guidelines 2024. He also sought 25% interest under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and costs.
Respondent. Counsel denied conversion, fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. He argued interest follows only where the defendant used the money, citing Attorney General v Dr Maj (Rtd) Anthony Jallon Okullo. He called the UGX 4,000,000 an ex gratia payment. He argued special damages were unproved, citing Adman Source & Contracts Limited v National Water & Sewerage Corporation. He argued general damages were unwarranted because the Applicant breached Clauses 5 and 10, citing Simon Mbalire v Moses Mukiibi.
Findings of the Tribunal
Pleadings. Parties are bound by their pleadings, per Nakirya Ssekataba v Attorney General [2006] UGCA 45. The Bureau’s finding of no contractual basis to retain the premiums stood unchallenged. Only quantum was in dispute.
Special damages. The premium statements showed UGX 4,500,000 paid. The UGX 500,000 deposit was legitimate and bought three months of cover, so the Tribunal did not award it. For the remaining UGX 1,500,000, the Tribunal refused to trust the agent given his admitted dishonesty. Minutes of 22 August 2023 recorded his admission of forging receipts. The Tribunal found payment more probable than not. Citing City Trek Ltd & Another v Batungwa Frank [2019] UGHCCD 237, the Tribunal held oral testimony and corroborating circumstances prove special damages. It awarded UGX 1,500,000.
General damages. The Applicant paid the first premium to the agent and the Respondent credited the payment. This created a legitimate expectation the agent could receive premiums. The policy reached the Applicant after the first payment, so Clause 5 was an additional mode of payment, not an exclusive one. The Respondent’s offers came too late. The Tribunal awarded UGX 1,000,000 for inconvenience and a frustrated savings dream, citing Sam Bahati v Bamulanzeki Isaac Samuel.
Interest. The Respondent improperly withheld UGX 4,000,000. Applying section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 and Sam Bahati v Bamulanzeki Isaac Samuel [2024] UGCommC 73, the Tribunal found 15% per annum reasonable, with inflation in view per Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd, HCCS No. 0224 of 2011.
Holding
The appeal succeeded in part. The Tribunal ordered:
1. Special damages of UGX 1,500,000.
2. General damages of UGX 1,000,000.
3. Interest at 15% per annum on UGX 4,000,000 from 1 March 2023 to 12 November 2025.
4. Costs of the application to the Applicant.
Key Takeaways
1. An insurer answers for premiums its agent receives when the insurer accepted earlier payments through the agent.
2. A payment channel clause does not bind the policyholder where agent payments began before the clause took effect.
3. Oral evidence with corroboration proves special damages where documents are forged.
4. Tribunals will not trust an admittedly dishonest intermediary.
5. Interest runs from when money should have been repaid, and a refund delayed three years supports general damages.
.jpg)
Comments