- with readers working within the Metals & Mining industries
- within Accounting and Audit and Cannabis & Hemp topic(s)
A recent judgment by the High Court of Uganda in Liberty Life Assurance v Joseryn Kyosimire and Pride Microfinance has sounded a warning to financial institutions that act in various capacities as lenders and bancassurance agents. Where a lender collects insurance premiums from its borrowers but fails to establish the existence of a valid insurance policy, the lender may be held responsible for the undertakings it made to the borrower regarding the insurance cover.
Background
The borrower obtained a loan from Pride Microfinance (the "lender"). The loan was disbursed less an amount charged by the lender for insurance fees. Later, heavy storms destroyed the borrower`s banana plantation. The lender assured her that compensation would be forthcoming from the insurer since the loan was insured. To her dismay, the insurer only paid a paltry sum, rather than wholly discharging the outstanding loan. The lender continued charging interest on the loan and threatened to attach the pledged security.
The borrower filed suit seeking a declaration that she did not owe any money. The Magistrate agreed and ordered the insurer to compensate and indemnify the lender for the outstanding loan balance and interest. The insurer appealed to the High Court.
The High Court's decision
The High Court set aside the Magistrate's judgment and addressed several significant principles at the intersection of insurance law, banking regulation and consumer protection.
The absence of a valid insurance policy for the relevant period
The Court found that the evidence on record did not establish the existence of an insurance policy for the year in which the premium was paid and the loss occurred. The insurance policies produced in evidence by the parties related to different periods altogether.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Suffish International Food Processors v Egypt Air Corporation, the Court held that a case on an insurance claim has no foundation in the absence of a valid policy or a credible explanation for its absence. Critically, neither the lender nor the insurer provided any credible explanation for why no relevant policy could be produced, a failure that proved fatal to the insurer's position. There was no basis for the Court to order the insurer to indemnify the borrower.
The lender's duty of transparency under the Financial Consumer Protection Guidelines
Having found no insurance policy on record for the relevant period, the Court turned to the critical question of where responsibility should fall. The Court invoked the Bank of Uganda Financial Consumer Protection Guidelines, which require financial services providers to ensure that contracts and other documentation relating to financial products and services are summarised in a key facts document written in plain language, setting out clearly and briefly all the key information relating to the product or service which a consumer is considering buying.
The Court held that the lender, as a financial services provider, had a duty to be transparent by providing the borrower with the necessary documentation of the insurance cover she paid for. The documentation would have enabled her to know whether she was getting her own policy, whether the lender was acting under a third-party arrangement with its clients covered, or whether it was providing a bancassurance product or acting as an insurance agent or broker. None of this was done, even though the lender collected the insurance fee from the borrower.
The lender's obligations are further reinforced by the Insurance (Bancassurance) Regulations, 2017, which impose specific duties on bancassurance agents. These include explaining insurance products to prospective policyholders, informing them of premiums to be charged, explaining disclosure requirements and rendering assistance in claims settlement. Significantly, the Regulations provide that an insurer may be held solely or jointly liable with a bancassurance agent for any complaint arising from fault in performance by either party, underscoring the shared responsibility for ensuring proper insurance placement and documentation.
The Court expressed the opinion that banks requiring insurance to be taken out by clients obtaining loans ought to give their clients all the documentation, including insurance policies or arrangements the bank has with the insurer, for the purpose of better consumer protection and transparency.
The lender bears the loss
The Court found that from the evidence, the lender told the borrower that the insurance would pay the entire loan in case of any loss. Considering that the lender collected the insurance premium from the borrower, that the loss occurred in the same year, and that the lender did not give her any documentation of the insurance policy or arrangement it had with the insurer for that year, the Court held that the lender should be held responsible for the undertakings it gave to the borrower. The Court ordered that the borrower does not owe the lender any money on the loan, and the lender would bear the costs of the appeal and the suit.
Practical guidance for lenders operating as bancassurance agents.
This judgment should serve as a wake-up call for financial institutions that operate in capacities as lenders, insurance intermediaries and bancassurance agents.
Lenders that deduct insurance premiums from loan disbursements or require borrowers to take out insurance must ensure that borrowers receive copies of the actual insurance policy, the policy schedule, and any arrangement agreements the lender has with the insurer. It is not sufficient to merely collect the premium and assure the borrower that the loan is insured. Lenders must ensure that borrowers understand the precise nature of the insurance arrangement, whether the borrower holds an individual policy, whether the lender holds a group or master policy or whether the lender is acting as a bancassurance agent or broker. Ambiguity in this regard, as this case demonstrates, can result in the lender bearing losses that would otherwise fall on the insurer.
The Court found that financial institutions must take seriously their obligations under Guideline 8(2) of the Bank of Uganda Financial Consumer Protection Guidelines, 2011, which mandates the provision of key facts documents in plain language. Failure to comply does not merely attract regulatory censure; it can, as this judgment demonstrates, result in the lender being held liable for the full value of an insured loss because it cannot produce evidence that it procured valid insurance cover for its client.
It is worth pausing here to observe that the Bank of Uganda Financial Consumer Protection Guidelines, remain in a notable state of flux. As we discussed in our previous article, "Uganda: Protection of financial sector consumers takes a knock" the judicial treatment of these Guidelines has been anything but settled. The courts have oscillated between applying the Guidelines as binding obligations and dismissing them as unenforceable for lacking force of law. In this case, the Court applied the Guidelines without interrogating their legal standing, in contrast to recent cases such as Choudry v Bank of Baroda, which held the Guidelines lack the force of law.
Lenders must maintain proper records matching each borrower's premium payment to a specific insurance policy for the correct period. The inability to produce a policy corresponding to the period of the premium payment and the loss was fatal in this case. Loan officers and branch staff must be trained to avoid making representations about insurance cover that exceeds the actual terms of the policy. In this case, the borrower's evidence that bank officials told her the insurance would pay the entire loan in case of any loss, corroborated by the lender's own submissions, formed the basis of the Court's finding that the lender should be held to those undertakings. Lenders should implement clear guidelines on what staff may and may not represent to borrowers regarding insurance cover.
Where a lender collects insurance premiums at the point of loan disbursement, it must ensure that cover is placed with the insurer promptly and for the correct period. The Court noted that the borrower paid her premium in 2019, yet no policy for 2019 could be produced. Any gap between premium collection and policy inception exposes the lender to liability for losses occurring during the uninsured period.
Lenders should also implement claims monitoring and escalation procedures. Financial institutions should maintain internal systems for tracking insurance claims filed by borrowers and, where an insurer delays, reduces or denies a claim, have documented escalation mechanisms to engage the insurer promptly and advocate for the borrower's interests. This demonstrates the lender's diligence in fulfilling its duties as a bancassurance agent and may help mitigate liability in disputed cases.
A developing area of law
The interplay between bancassurance arrangements and the allocation of loss where there are omissions in the insurance placement process remains a developing area of law. A matter with similar facts is currently pending judgment before the High Court, Commercial Division, in which an insurer is contending that the loss should fall on the insured where the insured dealt with the insurer through a bancassurance agent and there were material omissions in the proposal forms forwarded to the insurer, upon which the insurer issued a policy. It will be interesting to see how the Court addresses the question of whether the insured or the bancassurance agent should bear the consequences of such omissions, and whether the principles articulated in Kyosimire regarding the lender's duty of transparency will be extended to the context of policy placement and proposal form accuracy. The pending case may also clarify whether bancassurance agents have a positive duty to verify information provided by borrowers before forwarding proposal forms to insurers, and whether negligent misrepresentation by a lender could give rise to liability even where an insurance policy is ultimately issued.
On the regulatory front, the Insurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda has developed draft Consumer Protection Guidelines for the insurance industry. These draft Guidelines address concerns similar to those raised in this case, including requirements around transparency, disclosure, and the provision of policy documentation to consumers. However, as presently framed, they are guidelines and not regulations with the force of law. They therefore risk receiving the same inconsistent and inconclusive judicial treatment that has plagued the Bank of Uganda Financial Consumer Protection Guidelines.
Conclusion
The Kyosimire decision establishes a strict standard: financial institutions that act as intermediaries in the insurance placement process, collecting premiums from their borrowers and making representations about insurance cover, do so at their peril if they fail to provide borrowers with the underlying policy documentation. The High Court has confirmed that where a lender collects a premium, fails to produce a valid policy for the relevant period, and yet makes undertakings to the borrower regarding insurance cover, the lender will be held to those undertakings. For the banking and insurance industries, this judgment is a call to tighten operational processes around bancassurance. The duty of transparency under the Financial Consumer Protection Guidelines is not merely a regulatory formality; it is a substantive obligation whose breach can shift the entire financial burden of an insured loss from the insurer to the lender. Lenders who fail to provide their customers with insurance policies and proper documentation risk bearing the full cost of the facilities they extend, effectively rendering the insurance arrangement meaningless and transforming what should have been a risk-transfer mechanism into a source of direct liability.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
