[2023] KEMC 94 (KLR)

[2023] KEMC 94 (KLR)

The court found that the defendant insurer was served with the suit papers and statutory notice but failed to appear or defend the suit. The plaintiff had obtained a valid judgment against the insured, and under section 10(1) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, the insurer was liable to satisfy...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEMC 94 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Daniel Kituku Makau; Defendant: Invesco Assurance Company Limited
Court
Magistrate's Court
Court Station
Chief Magistrate's Court (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 7671 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiff
Judges
JP Aduke
Legal Topics
Declaratory Suit, Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks, Default Judgment, Enforcement of Judgments
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Declaratory Suit Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks Default Judgment Enforcement of Judgments

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Kituku Makau

Plaintiff

Invesco Assurance Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable to satisfy the judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the insured under section 10(1) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the sums awarded in the prior judgment and the costs and interest claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant insurer was served with the suit papers and statutory notice but failed to appear or defend the suit. The plaintiff had obtained a valid judgment against the insured, and under section 10(1) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, the insurer was liable to satisfy that judgment. The court further held that awarding interest again on the principal sum already attracting interest in the prior judgment would result in unjust enrichment through compounding. Therefore, the defendant was ordered to pay the sums outlined in the prior judgment, with costs of the present suit and interest on those costs only from the date of this judgment until...

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • The defendant is liable and is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sums outlined in the judgment dated 06th June 2016 issued by Hon L.M. Wachira SPM.
  • The defendant shall pay the costs of this suit.