[2000] KEHC 374 (KLR)

[2000] KEHC 374 (KLR)

The court found that the defendant, having participated in the lower court proceedings and consented to judgment in favour of the plaintiff, could not now deny its status as insurer. The only ground of defence—that the defendant was not the insurer—was inconsistent with the consent judgment and did not raise any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] KEHC 374 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mburu Gatumu; Defendant: Stallion Insurance Co., Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 1367 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence and Enter Judgment
Outcome
application allowed; defence struck out; judgment entered for plaintiff
Judges
JL Osiemo
Legal Topics
Striking Out Defence, Third Party Risks, Judgment Enforcement
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Striking Out Defence Third Party Risks Judgment Enforcement

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

Mburu Gatumu

Plaintiff

Stallion Insurance Co., Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence and Enter Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's statement of defence should be struck out as scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious.
  2. 2 Whether the insurer is obligated under section 10 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act to satisfy the judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the insured.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant, having participated in the lower court proceedings and consented to judgment in favour of the plaintiff, could not now deny its status as insurer. The only ground of defence—that the defendant was not the insurer—was inconsistent with the consent judgment and did not raise any arguable issue. Accordingly, the defence was struck out as frivolous and vexatious, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff as prayed, pursuant to the insurer's statutory obligation under section 10 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act.

Court Disposition

application allowed; defence struck out; judgment entered for plaintiff

Orders

  • The defence filed on 26th July, 1999 is struck out.
  • Judgment is entered for the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint filed on 7th July, 1999.