Mwangi v UAP Old Mutual Insurance Company Limited (Civil Case E174 of 2021) [2025] KEMC 185 (KLR) (29 July 2025) (Judgment)

Key Facts

Issues

• Who should bear the costs of this suit?
• Whether the defendant was the insurer of motor vehicle registration number KCB 761T under policy number P/020/070/1/001210/2016 at the time of the accident.
• Whether the defendant is bound to satisfy the decree in Makindu PMCC No. 326 of 2018.

Holdings

• Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant
• A declaration is hereby issued that the defendant is bound to satisfy the judgment or half of the decretal sum in Makindu PMCC No. 326 of 2018
• The defendant is adjudged to pay the plaintiff the decretal sum of Ksh. 3,550,145/=. However, pursuant to section 5(b) (iv) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, the defendant shall pay the maximum sum of Ksh. 3,000,000/=
• The defendant shall also pay accrued interest on the decretal sum at court rates from 20/5/2021 when interest was last awarded until payment in full
• The plaintiff is awarded costs of this suit

Remedies

• A declaration is hereby issued that the defendant is bound to satisfy the judgment or half of the decretal sum in Makindu PMCC No. 326 of 2018.
• Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant.
• The plaintiff is awarded costs of this suit.
• The defendant is adjudged to pay the plaintiff the decretal sum of Ksh. 3,550,145/=. However, pursuant to section 5(b) (iv) of the Insurance Act, the maximum sum payable is Ksh. 3,000,000/=.
• The defendant shall also pay accrued interest on the decretal sum at court rates from 2021-05-20 when interest was last awarded until payment in full.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The court accepted the police abstract as prima facie evidence of the defendant's insurance status, despite the absence of a certified insurance certificate. The unchallenged police abstract was deemed sufficient to establish the defendant's role as insurer.
• The court applied the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) to determine the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff satisfied this standard by demonstrating, through the police abstract and other evidence, that the defendant was the insurer of the vehicle at the time of the accident.
• The defendant argued that privity of contract between the insurer and the insured was required for liability. However, the court rejected this, noting that the plaintiff was not required to establish privity, as the police abstract sufficiently indicated the defendant's insurance status.
• The court held that the legal burden of proof to disprove the plaintiff's allegations regarding the defendant's insurance liability rested with the defendant. The defendant's failure to adduce evidence to contradict the plaintiff's claims, particularly the unchallenged police abstract, led to a finding in favor of the plaintiff.

Precedent Name

• Madison Insurance Company Limited v Augustine Kamanda Gitau
• Blueshield Insurance Co. Ltd v Raymond Buuri M'Rimberia
• Joel Muga Opija v East African Sea Food Limited

Cited Statute

• Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act
• Evidence Act

Judge Name

Passage Text

• The defendant shall pay the maximum sum of Ksh. 3,000,000/= to the plaintiff pursuant to section 5(b) (iv) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act.
• Whether or not the defendant was the insurer of motor vehicle registration number KCB 761T is a fact within the knowledge of the defendant. In the face of prima facie evidence, the defendant had the duty to disprove the plaintiff's evidence. It did not do so. The defendant cannot purport to rely on the mere denial in its statement of defence. Pleadings remain mere allegations unless and until they are supported by evidence.
• A declaration is hereby issued that the defendant is bound to satisfy the judgment or half of the decretal sum in Makindu PMCC No. 326 of 2018.