[2004] KEHC 850 (KLR)
The court found that, although the statutory notice was indeed served on the defendant and this fact was clarified by the newly discovered letter, there remained substantive triable issues regarding whether the insurance policy covered the plaintiff's claim as a passenger. The existence of such triable issues meant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 850 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jenipher Gumba Oyoo; Defendant: Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 133 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Dismissal of Application to Strike Out Defence
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Striking Out Defence, Statutory Notice Requirements, Insurance Policy Coverage
- 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
Jenipher Gumba Oyoo
Plaintiff
Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Dismissal of Application to Strike Out Defence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review its earlier ruling dismissing the plaintiff's application to strike out the defendant's defence.
- 2 Whether discovery of a letter acknowledging receipt of statutory notice constitutes new evidence justifying review.
- 3 Whether the insurance policy covered the plaintiff's claim as a passenger.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although the statutory notice was indeed served on the defendant and this fact was clarified by the newly discovered letter, there remained substantive triable issues regarding whether the insurance policy covered the plaintiff's claim as a passenger. The existence of such triable issues meant that the defence could not be summarily struck out, and the matter should proceed to full trial for proper determination. The court held that the discovery of the letter did not eliminate the need for a trial on the substantive issue of policy coverage. Therefore, the application for review was dismissed, and the earlier ruling was upheld.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII CIVIL CASE NO.133 OF 2000
JENIPHER GUMBA OYOO ………………………………………….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KENINDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ……………………………… DEFENDANT.
RULING
The applicant/plaintiff prays to court to review its ruling and subsequent order of 25th March 2004 dismissing the plaintiff’s application dated 1/4/03. He then prays that judgment be entered in the terms of the amended plaint as was prayed in the dismissed application dated 1/4/03. He also prays for costs.
The plaintiff had sued H. P. MASHIRU CO. LTD in KISII HCCC.NO.203 of 1998 for damages arising from injuries suffered when he was traveling in the defendant’s m/v. Reg. No.KSH 130 which was involved in an accident. Court found for the plaintiff and awarded shs.630, 000/= general damages, shs.2, 500/= special damages together with costs and interests. Costs were taxed at shs.157, 500/= and interest calculated. The said motor vehicle was then insured by the defendant Co. in this case. The plaintiff brought this declaratory suit against the defendant.
Defendant filed its defence and denied liability. One line of defence was that if they had insured the defendant’s vehicle in the original suit, the policy did not cover the claim by the plaintiff.
The applicant/defendant filed application dated 1/4/2003 seeking court to strike out the defendant’s defence and enter judgment as prayed in the plaint.
The court having listened to both sides dismissed the application and declined to strike out defence holding that the defence raises triable issues. It is that ruling the applicant want reviewed. One reason why the court declined to strike out defence was that there were doubts if the plaintiff served the defendant with the Statutory Notice as required by the Act. Ms. Obaga submitted that after the ruling there was discovery of new evidence in form of a letter from the Insurance Company acknowledging receipt of the Notice.This, she submitted was discovery of new evidence which if it had been presented to court during the hearing of the application the court will have found in favour of her client. She said the letter had been misfiled in her Office and that was why it was not discovered in time.
The defendant indicated that they had insured the vehicle in question but the policy was commercial and did not cover passengers. She submitted that in light of the case of SHAH VS. MBOGO (1967) E.A. 116 the defendant cannot escape paying the claim.
Application was opposed. Mr. Okongo submitted that there was no discovery of new evidence. The letter in question referred to other cases and not the present one.He further contended that the defendant having not insured claims by passengers, he cannot pay the plaintiff’s claim. He referred the court to the case of GATEWAY INS. CO. Ltd VS. SUDAN MATHEWS HCCC.NO.1078 OF 2000 (Milimani).
Indeed the court holds that there was doubt as to whether the defendant was served. It now seems that they were served and acknowledged the said vide their letter dated 20th May 1998 though they denied liability. This letter according to counsel for the applicant was misfiled in her office. She has explained the mix up of the cases cited in the letters and the explanation is plausible.
It is therefore clear that the defendant was served with the Notice. However there is the issue of whether the type of insurance policy issued covered the type of claims such as that of the plaintiff who was a passenger in the vehicle. Indications were that the policy did not cover passengers but only covered commercial goods. I was referred to Shah’s case but then the respondent also referred to the case of GATEWAY INS. CO. LTD case which held differently. Both were decisions of the High Court. I feel that issue need to go for full trial. It is an issue which goes to the cause of this claim and need to be addressed at a full hearing. It would not be just to shut the defendant from being heard.His contention may succeed or not but it has been held severally that a triable issue is not one that will necessary succeed but one which can be canvassed. The issue whether the policy covered the plaintiff’s claim is one which can and need to be canvassed.
Thus though I find that the statutory notice was served contrary to my judging in my earlier ruling, I still find that there are other triable issues. I therefore decline to review or set aside my earlier ruling. The application is dismissed with costs.
Dated at Kisii this 22nd day of October 2004
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE.