[2009] KEHC 603 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 603 (KLR)

The court held that the statutory framework under Section 10 of the Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, Cap 405, clearly places the obligation to satisfy decrees or judgments solely on the insurer and not on the agent or broker. Since the 1st defendant is an insurance broker and not the insurer, there is no cause of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 603 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Abdulrab Virjee; Defendant: Habari Insurance Brokers Ltd; Defendant: First Assurance Company Ltd.
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 181 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Claim Against 1st Defendant
Outcome
Claim against the 1st defendant struck out with costs.
Legal Topics
Insurance Liability, Third Party Risks, Striking Out Proceedings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Insurance Liability Third Party Risks Striking Out Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdulrab Virjee

Plaintiff

Habari Insurance Brokers Ltd

Defendant

First Assurance Company Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Claim Against 1st Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant, as an insurance broker, can be held liable to satisfy a decree or judgment under the Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, Cap 405.
  2. 2 Whether there is a cause of action against the 1st defendant in the context of statutory indemnity obligations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the statutory framework under Section 10 of the Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, Cap 405, clearly places the obligation to satisfy decrees or judgments solely on the insurer and not on the agent or broker. Since the 1st defendant is an insurance broker and not the insurer, there is no cause of action against it. The court found the statutory provision to be explicit and not requiring further interpretation regarding agency. Consequently, the claim against the 1st defendant was struck out with costs.

Court Disposition

Claim against the 1st defendant struck out with costs.

Orders

  • The claim against the 1st defendant is struck out.
  • The 1st defendant is awarded costs.