[2000] KEHC 508 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant did not dispute collecting insurance premiums on behalf of the plaintiff and failed to provide credible evidence of payment or valid set-off. The defendant's arguments regarding credits and commissions were unsubstantiated, and no counterclaim was filed. The court held that there...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 508 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Corporate Insurance Co. Ltd.; Defendant: Trade Insurance Brokers Ltd.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1232 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Summary Judgement / Judgement
- Outcome
- summary judgement granted for the plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgement, Insurance Premiums, Agency Relationships, Account Reconciliation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Corporate Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plaintiff
Trade Insurance Brokers Ltd.
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgement / Judgement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant is liable to remit insurance premiums collected on behalf of the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether there exist triable issues that would preclude entry of summary judgement.
- 3 Whether the defendant's claims of set-off or credits are substantiated.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant did not dispute collecting insurance premiums on behalf of the plaintiff and failed to provide credible evidence of payment or valid set-off. The defendant's arguments regarding credits and commissions were unsubstantiated, and no counterclaim was filed. The court held that there were no triable issues raised by the defence, and the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgement for the reconciled amount of Ksh.803,377/-. The defendant's right to pursue any further claims was preserved by allowing them to file a fresh suit if necessary.
Court Disposition
summary judgement granted for the plaintiff
Orders
- Judgement entered for the plaintiff in the sum of Ksh.803,377/-.
- Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Summary judgement Order 35 r 1 CPR Order 6 r13(b) (c) & (d) Order 12 r 6 CPR
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CIVIL CASE NO. 1232 OF 1998
CORPORATE INSURANCE CO. LTD. ....................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
TRADE INSURANCE BR OKERS LTD. ................. DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
The Plaintiff is a licensed corporate body dealing with insurance business. The defendant is a corporate body dealing with insurance business as agent and broker.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for failing to remit insurance premium collected on their behalf amounting to Ksh.1. 964,574/-.The defendant did not dispute owing the insurance premium to the plaintiff but states that the plaintiff owned them money for credits due to them.
Indeed they the defendants proved themselves right when the plaintiffs, after reconciling their accounts came up with the figure of Ksh.803,377/- as due and owing.In their defence the defendants alleged there was no agreement between the parties. That it is true they collected premium on behalf of the plaintiffs but the actual amount due to the plaintiffs was dependant on the several credits yet to be accounted for towards them by the plaintiff. That the figure of Ksh.1. 964,574/- should reduce to Ksh.1. 516,260/-. No counter claim was filed or pleaded with the defence.
The plaintiff at once filed an application on summary judgement. They were able to demonstrate that the defendants were officially appointed as agents through an agreement marked “FNG1”.
That the defendants have made payment proposals any settlement was not always honoured.
In reply, the defendants stated the agreement was entered into by one “Professional Business Services Ltd.” who in fact are not the defendants. That the correct statement of accounts is Ksh.762,515/-. That any moneys due and owing had been paid by cash or other cheques. Any amount due should be off set by commission due to them.
The advocate for the plaintiffs stated that what the defendants sort was accounts. They showed no proof of the payment of cash or cheques to replace the dishonoured cheque. The plaintiffs have since done their reconciliation and are satisfied the figures now are to them as Ksh.803,377/- as prayed.
The defendants claim there are triable issues.
I hold that the defendants do not deny owing the plaintiffs premiums due. I believe their submission.
I hereby allow this application for summary judgement of Ksh.803,377/- as prayed.
The defendants had not filed a counter-claim. They are free to file fresh suit to claim their premiums “no claim” discounts cancelled comes against the plaintiff, if any.
I award costs of this application to the plaintiff.
Dated this 14th day of July, 2000 at Nairobi.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE