https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/385

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/385

The defendant's objection depended on matters that required proof and did not amount to a pure point of law. Applying Mukisa Biscuits, the court held that the objections raised were not proper preliminary objections. The suit remained properly before the court and was to proceed to full hearing.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEMC 385 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter K Yego; Defendant: Britam Insurance Company Limited
Court
Magistrate's Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit E100 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Judges
["PA Ndege"]
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objections, Third Party Insurance Liability, Enforcement Against Insurer, Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks, Material Damage Claims
Source Language
en
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Preliminary Objections Third Party Insurance Liability Enforcement Against Insurer Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks Material Damage Claims

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter K Yego

Plaintiff

Britam Insurance Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's objections qualified as a preliminary objection under Mukisa Biscuits
  2. 2 Whether section 10(1) read with section 5 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act covers a material damage claim
  3. 3 Whether the suit was properly before the court for full hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's objection depended on matters that required proof and did not amount to a pure point of law. Applying Mukisa Biscuits, the court held that the objections raised were not proper preliminary objections. The suit remained properly before the court and was to proceed to full hearing.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection dated 4 March 2025 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the preliminary objection are awarded to the plaintiff.