By Our Reporters
Stephen Sekigozi, a public-spirited individual, has dragged Emmanuel Mutebile’s Bank of Uganda and Kaddunabi Lubega’s Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA) to the High Court challenging their failure to appropriately advise government regarding the imposition and collection of penalties on motorists who default on 3rd Party insurance obligations. Court papers show that the relevant cause of action arose from the very painful experience Sekigozi endured as he drove to town on 23rd May 2018. As he drove in his Mitsubishi Pajero (UAW 683N), the youthful Busiro South politician was stopped by traffic police around Kabuusu/Rubaga along Masaka Road. The traffic police, representing the GoU/Attorney General whom Sekigozi sues as first respondent in his court case, forcefully dragged the DP diehard to Katwe police station where his vehicle was impounded until he paid the mandatory Shs40,000 and another Shs2,500 as bank charges. Sekigozi, who actually had his 3rd party having purchased the same on 16th February 2018 but hadn’t yet displayed it on the vehicle, is now furious and wants court to declare the police’s involvement in 3rd party-related matters illegal. His argument is the Contracts Act provides for privity of contract meaning police has nothing to do with enforcement of a contract between him and the insurance company which in this case is Sanlam General Insurance Ltd. They are the ones from whom he bought the 3rd Party policy having paid the annual premium of Shs70,000. He refers to section 65 of the Contracts Act to argue that absence of freedom by a party to contract, once proved, makes the resultant contract or agreement voidable-and wants court to declare as much. He says the imposition of Shs2,500 as bank charges is coercive and millions of motorists are very much aggrieved. He wonders why Bank of Africa, which he considers to be an agent of the GoU on whose behalf the Shs40,000 mandatory fine is collected, imposes the Shs2,500 as bank charges. There has for long been public outcry that this Shs2,500 is extortion because it’s over and above the penalty fees. Issued to him by Joan Baganizi, the policy was to last for 12 months and Sekigozi blames police’s involvement in enforcing a contract to which they aren’t privy to failure by Kaddunabi’s IRA to properly advise government on the right position. He paid the Shs42,500 in Bank of Africa Kabalagala branch. Through his lawyers, Tropical Law Advocates based 6th floor Workers House, Sekigozi particularizes his claim against the three defendants he is suing against namely Attorney General, the IRA and Bank of Uganda.
CASE AGAINST IRA;
He asserts that there are lots of inconsistences in the way motorists’ 3rd Party-related obligations are enforced because of the ineptness and incompetence of Kaddunabi’s leadership at IRA which is based at Legacy Towers in Nakasero. He says this has led many insurance companies (IRA’s licensees) to engage in lots of inappropriate conduct when carrying out the insurance business. He is aggrieved that IRA has failed its statutory obligations that inter-alia require it to “establish a standardized proper vending system and premium-charging criteria for 3rd party insurance.” Sekigozi claims to be acting in the interest of millions of other 3rd party insurance policy holders and beneficiaries who remain aggrieved. He demands that court issues an order compelling IRA to strictly enforce the provisions of the Insurance Act and the regulations thereunder. He considers BoU negligent for its failure to ensure that commercial banks (its licensees) don’t impose exploitative and “irregular” charges on motorists who go to their counter to pay the mandatory Shs40,000 penalty for failing to have a valid 3rd party policy displayed on one’s vehicle. He says the bank charges imposed is an act of extortion against which BoU should call banks to order. In his plaint, Sekigozi implies that BoU must be conniving to have Ugandan motorists exploited because it’s represented on the IRA governing board that does oversight and sets policy to be implemented by the Kaddunabi-led management at IRA. He says that, whereas the relevant provisions of the law require that offer and acceptance in contracting must be preceded with expressly clear and specifically known terms (could be implied), BoU and IRA ineptness has permitted lots of inconsistences and uncertainties in the “management, vending and issuance of 3rd party policies.”
SEEKING DECLARATIONS;
The plaintiff seeks a number of declarations from court including declaring the act of police being involved contravenes Section 33 of the Road Traffic and Safety Act. He wants the Shs2,500 bank charges, paid under BoU supervision, to be declared illegal and unlawful-and immediately stopped by court. He seeks declaration that the police act of impounding vehicles that don’t display or don’t have 3rd party insurance policy is unlawful and contravenes Article 28 of the Constitution. He wants court to direct that IRA ensures all monies and funds accumulated in these traffic penalties are refunded to the motorists who have been paying it. He argues that this mandatory Shs40,000 penalty must be refunded under Sections 143(1), 143(2) and 143(4) of the Road Safety Act. He wants a declaration that the imposition of 3rd party is discriminatory and contravenes articles 21 of the constitution which prohibits selective application of rules. His evidence for this alleged discrimination lies in the fact that government motorists/vehicles, which drive on the same roads and under similar circumstances and conditions, are exempted from paying for 3rd party insurance policy and having the same displayed. He also demands establishment of a policy that will ensure that all motorists are subjected to uniform and consistent treatment regarding 3rd party insurance policy. For comments, call/text/whatsapp us 0703164755.
