https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/170

Masika v Directline Assurance Company Limited (Civil Case E182 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 170 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 170 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Mombasa Law Courts Civil Case E182 of 2025 EM Mwamuye, SRM June 25, 2026 Between Emmanuel Masika Plaintiff and Directline Assurance Company Limited Defendant Judgment Introduction 1.The Plaintiff instituted this declaratory suit against the Defendant pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, Cap 405 Laws of Kenya seeking a declaration that the Defendant, as insurer of motor tricycle registration number KTWB 014D make Piaggio, is obligated to satisfy the decree issued in Mombasa CMCC No. E828 of 2024, Emmanuel Juma Masika v Jeska Elialilia Tengela. 2.The Plaintiff seeks payment of Kshs. 222,834.95 together with interest and costs of this suit. 3.The Defendant entered appearance and filed a Statement of Defence denying insurance cover, denying service of statutory notice and denying liability to satisfy the decree. 4.The matter proceeded for hearing on 25th February 2026. The Plaintiff testified and produced documentary evidence. The Defence subsequently closed its case without calling evidence. Written submissions were thereafter filed by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Case 5.The Plaintiff testified that he was involved in a road traffic accident on 23rd April 2024 along Mtongwe Road while lawfully travelling aboard motor tricycle registration number KTWB 014D make Piaggio. 6.Following the accident, he instituted Mombasa CMCC No. E828 of 2024 against the owner of the tricycle and obtained judgment on 13th August 2024. 7.The Plaintiff produced documentary evidence including: Police Abstract. Statutory Notice. Decree. Demand letters. Notice of Entry of Judgment.AKI Verification Certificate. Certificate of Authentication. Identity Card. Court record in MCCC No. E828 of 2024. 8.The Plaintiff testified that statutory notice was issued on 26th April 2024 and received by the Defendant on 30th April 2024 prior to institution of the primary suit. 9.He further testified that after judgment was entered on 13th August 2024, a Notice of Entry of Judgment was served upon the Defendant and thereafter a further demand dated 15th November 2024 was issued before commencement of the declaratory proceedings. 10.Despite the notices and demands, neither the insured nor the Defendant satisfied the decree. Defendant's Case 11.The Defendant filed a Statement of Defence. The Defendant: Denied issuing the policy of insurance. Denied knowledge of the accident. Denied knowledge of CMCC No. E828 of 2024. Denied service of statutory notice. Denied service of demand letters. Contended that it was not notified of the institution and progress of the primary suit. Prayed for dismissal of the suit. 12.No evidence was tendered by the Defendant in support of those averments. It is trite law that pleadings are not evidence. The denials contained in the Defence therefore remained unsupported. Issues for Determination 13.Having considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions, the issues arising for determination are:i.Whether motor tricycle KTWB 014D was insured by the Defendant.ii.Whether statutory notice was served upon the Defendant.iii.Whether judgment was obtained against the Defendant's insured.iv.Whether the judgment remains unsatisfied.v.Whether the Defendant is liable under Section 10 of Cap 405 to satisfy the decree.vi.Who should bear costs. Analysis and Determination Whether KTWB 014D was insured by the Defendant 14.The Plaintiff produced: Police Abstract. AKI verification records. The AKI verification confirms: Vehicle Registration Number: KTWB 014D. Insurer: Directline Assurance Company Limited. Policy Number: 00502203. Policy period: 27th August 2023 to 1st July 2024. The accident occurred on 23rd April 2024. 15.The insurance policy was therefore valid and subsisting on the date of the accident. The Defendant tendered no evidence challenging the AKI verification. I am satisfied that KTWB 014D was insured by the Defendant as at the date of the accident. Whether Statutory Notice was Served 16.The Plaintiff produced the statutory notice dated 26th April 2024 addressed to the Defendant's Claims Manager. The document bears a stamp showing receipt by the Defendant on 30th April 2024. 17.The primary suit was subsequently filed on 4th June 2024. The statutory notice was therefore served more than fourteen days before institution of the primary suit. 18.The Defendant offered no evidence rebutting the documentary proof of service. 19.I therefore find that statutory notice was duly served in compliance with Section 10(2)(a) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act. Whether Judgment was Obtained Against the Insured 20.The Plaintiff produced: Judgment. Decree. Certificate of Costs. The evidence establishes that judgment was entered on 13th August 2024 in MCCC No. E828 of 2024 in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant's insured. 21.The award comprised: General damages – Kshs. 155,000. Special damages – Kshs. 2,150. Costs – Kshs. 61,740. Interest – Kshs. 2,944.95. Total decretal amount: Kshs. 222,834.95. I therefore find that a valid decree exists. Whether the Judgment Remains Unsatisfied 22.The Plaintiff testified that: Notice of Entry of Judgment was issued. Demand letters were issued. The decree remains unpaid. The Defendant produced no evidence of settlement. 23.I therefore find that the decree remains wholly unsatisfied. Whether the Defendant is Liable Under Section 10 of Cap 405 24.The Plaintiff relied on UAP Insurance Co. Ltd v Patrick Charo Chiro [2021] eKLR, where the High Court held that liability under Section 10 arises where: The motor vehicle was insured by the insurer. Judgment has been obtained against the insured. Statutory notice has been issued. The claimant is a person covered by the policy. The Plaintiff has proved each of the foregoing elements. 25.The Defendant neither produced evidence that the policy had been avoided nor evidence of any declaratory proceedings contemplated under Section 10(4) of Cap 405. 26.Consequently, the Defendant is statutorily bound to satisfy the decree. Disposition 27.Having considered all the evidence on record, I find that the Plaintiff has proved his case on a balance of probabilities. 28.Accordingly, judgment is entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant as follows:a.A declaration is hereby issued that the Defendant, Directline Assurance Company Limited, is obligated under Section 10 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, Cap 405, to satisfy the decree issued in Mombasa CMCC No. E828 of 2024.b.Judgment is entered for the Plaintiff in the sum of Kshs. 222,834.95.c.The said sum shall attract interest from 13th August 2024 on damages and from 1st October 2024 on costs until payment in full.d.The Plaintiff shall have the costs of this suit.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT MOMBASA THIS 25TH JUNE 2026.............................................EMILY M. MWAMUYESENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE