Irungu v Directline Assurance Co Ltd (Civil Case E216 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 461 (KLR) (22 July 2026) (Judgment)

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF KENYA AT MURANGA COUNTY COURT NAME: MURANGA MAGISTRATE COURT CASE NUMBER: MCCC/E216/2024 FRASHIA MUTHONI IRUNGU VS DIRECTLINE ASSURANCE CO. LTD JUDGMENT 1. The instant suit has been lodged by Frashia Muthoni Irungu, the legal representative of the estate of the late Dickson Irungu Kingau (deceased) vide a plaint amended on 3rd May 2025, seeking the following orders; 1. A declaration that the defendant is under a statutory obligation to indemnify the defendant the said Peterson Mwangi Maundu in Murang’a CMCC E256 of 2021 by satisfying the decree in the said case in favour of the plaintiff herein the late Dickson Irungu Kingau; 2. An order that the defendant pays to the plaintiff the sum adjudged in the decree in Murang’a CMCC E256 of 2021 together with further accrued interest; 3. Costs of this suit; and 4. Interest. 2. It is the plaintiff’s case that on 14 th November 2020, the deceased was travelling as a lawful passenger aboard motor vehicle registration number KUD 965 Isuzu lorry (herein “the subject vehicle”) and was run over by the subject vehicle upon alighting. The plaintiff averred that the subject vehicle was owned by one Peterson Mwangi Maundu who was insured by the defendant vide policy no. 06016233. The deceased’s claim in Murang’a CMCC E256 of 2021 against the defendant was determined and a decree issued against the defendant’s insured in the matter. By August 2024, the sums outstanding in the previous suit was Kshs. 2,950,756.75/=. The same had not been paid despite issuance of a demand notice to the defendant, hence the suit against the defendant. 1. The defendant denied the entire claim in its statement of defence dated 8th November 2024 and urged the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit. 2. When the matter came up for hearing, the deceased’s mother Frashia Muthoni Irungu (PW1), adopted her written statement and produced the listed documents in support of the suit. The defendant closed its case without calling any witnesses. # ISSUES, ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 1. The issues from the pleadings and the evidence before this court are; # Whether judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff in Murang’a CMCC E256 of 2021, and if so; * 1. **Whether the defendant is required to settle the decretal sum in the matter.** 1. In support of the claim against the defendant, PW1 produced a copy of a copy of a police abstract issued with respect to the accident. The police abstract showed that the deceased was involved in a road traffic accident with the subject vehicle on 14th November 2020. The police abstract noted that the owner of the vehicle was Peterson Mwangi Maundu. A copy of a decree issued in Murang’a CMCC E256 of 2021, was also produced to show that a suit was filed by the deceased against the aforementioned Peterson Mwangi Maundu. The decree which was issued on 23rd July 2024, indicates that judgment was entered in the deceased’s favor for a total sum of Kshs. 2,603,550/= together with interest and costs which were assessed at Kshs. 162,471.25/=. The defendant did not assert or prove that the copy of police abstract or decree were not authentic. Consequently, this court finds that the plaintiff satisfactorily established that judgment was entered in favor of the deceased in Murang’a CMCC E256 of 2021 against one Peterson Mwangi Maundu. 2. Having answered the first issue in the affirmative, this court will now address the second issue which is whether the defendant is required to settle the decretal sum in Murang’a CMCC E256 of 2021. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is under a statutory obligation to satisfy the decretal sum under the provisions of the **Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act.** Specifically, **Section 10 (2)** of the Act provides that an insurer is required to settle any judgment, costs and interest against its insured. The provision stipulates; *10(1) If, after a policy of insurance has been effected, judgment in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under paragraph (b) of section 5 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel, or may have avoided or cancelled, the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the persons entitled to the benefit of the judgment any sum payable thereunder in respect of the liability, including any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments.* 1. The plaintiff has referred this court to the case of [***UAP Insurance Co. Ltd v Patrick Charo Chiro [2021] KEHC 6557 (KLR)***](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2021/6557/eng%402021-06-02) where the court analyzed Section 10 of the Act and found thus; *16. The import of the above provision of the law is that for liability to accrue under section 10 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act CAP 405, there is a 4-fold test to be met. Firstly, that the motor vehicle in question was insured by the appellant; Secondly, that the respondent has a judgement in his favour against the insured; Thirdly, that statutory notice was issued to the insurer either at least 14 days before the filing of the suit wherein judgement has been obtained or within 30 days of filing the suit where judgement has been obtained and finally the respondent was a person covered by the insurance policy. See Roseline Violet Akinyi v Celestine Opiyo Wangwau (2020) eKLR and Stephen Kiarie Chege v Insurance Regulatory Authority & Another (2009) eKLR.* 1. The plaintiff produced a copy of the police abstract to prove that the defendant in Murang’a CMCC E256 of 2021, Peterson Mwangi Maundu was the owner of the subject vehicle and that he was the defendant’s insured at the material time. In the case of [***Esther Muthoni Munyiri v Amaco Insurance Company Limited [2021] KEHC 5966 (KLR)***](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2021/5966/eng%402021-06-17) the court held as follows on reliance on a police abstract to prove that an insurance policy was issued for a specific vehicle; 2. *Mabeya J. stated in APA Insurance Co. Ltd vs George Masele [2014] eKLR held:-* *“As to the certificate of insurance which Ms. Akonga insists should have been produced, I am of the contrary view. The Certificate of Insurance is usually issued to the insured and not the road accident victim. It is a document in the special knowledge and possession of both the insured and the insurer. The road traffic accident victim cannot access it. The details in the police abstract as to the details of insurance are in the ordinary cause of events obtained by the police from the Certificate of Insurance affixed to the motor vehicle or are supplied by the insured….”* 1. *The Court of Appeal in the case of Joel Muna Opija vs East African Sea Food Ltd [2013] eKLR held that:-* *“The best way to prove ownership of a motor vehicle would be to produce a document from the registrar of motor vehicles showing the registered owner. However, if a police abstract is produced in court without any objection, its contents cannot be denied.”* 1. *This Court of Appeal decision is binding on this court and presents very sound reasoning on proof ownership of a vehicle which is akin to the issue herein that save for the general denial that it had not insured the vehicle, the respondent did not deny the contents of the police abstract. As such, it is a general practice that the police abstract ordinarily captures the details of the insurance policy from the Certificate of Insurance affixed to the motor vehicle. In case, the contents of the abstract have not been contested by the respondent through evidence. As such, I hold the view that the police abstract was sufficient proof of evidence that the respondent was the insurer of the vehicle registration number KBD 139N at the time of the accident.* 2. The defendant in the present matter similarly failed to challenge the production of the police abstract. Consequently, the same is taken as sufficient proof of the fact that the defendant herein had insured the subject vehicle at the material time and that the policy cover had been issued to Peterson Mwangi Maundu, the defendant in Murang’a CMCC E256 of 2021. 3. During the hearing of the matter, the defendant’s learned counsel challenged service of the statutory notice upon the defendant as required under Section 10 (2) above. However, a stamped copy of a letter dated 17th February 2021 shows that the defendant received a notice of intention to sue addressed to its insurer on 5th March 2021. The defendant’s response vide a letter dated 10th March 2021 requesting for certified copies of documents in support of the suit shows that defendant was aware of the impending suit. Although the defendant denied the claim, no evidence was adduced to counter the plaintiff’s suit. 1. Accordingly, this court finds that the plaintiff proved her case to the required standard. It has been proved on a balance of probabilities that judgment was entered against the defendant’s insured in Murang’a CMCC E256 of 2021. It has also been proved that the defendant was duly notified of the impending suit and that despite notice of the instant suit, the defendant has failed to settle the decretal sum in the initial suit as required under the Act. This court therefore enters judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant as sought in the plaint amended on 3rd May 2025. # DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 2026. **HON. GRACE WAITHĨRA SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE** **JUDGMENT READ ON THE VIRTUAL PLATFORM IN THE PRESENCE OF; C/A JEREMIAH** **MR. MBUTHIA FOR THE PLAINTIFF** **NO APPEARANCE FOR THE DEFENDANT** SIGNED BY/FOR: **★ TH E JUDICIAR Y O F KENY A ★** **HON. GRACE WAITHIRA** Muranga Magistrate Court Magistrate Court Date: 2026-07-22 12:45:49