https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/173

Beja v Directline Assurance Company Ltd (Civil Case E1305 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 173 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 173 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Mombasa Law Courts Civil Case E1305 of 2023 EM Mwamuye, SRM June 25, 2026 Between Ronald Katana Beja Plaintiff and Directline Assurance Company Limited Defendant Judgment 1.The Plaintiff instituted this declaratory suit against the Defendant pursuant to Section 10 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act, Cap 405 Laws of Kenya, seeking to compel the Defendant insurer to satisfy a decree obtained in Mombasa SRMCC No. E485 of 2020, Ronald Katana Beja v Mohamed Salim & Shawgi Hood Abeid. 2.The Plaintiff's case is that on 14th March 2020 he sustained injuries whilst travelling as a lawful fare-paying passenger in motor vehicle registration number KBJ 803X. He thereafter filed SRMCC No. E485 of 2020 against Mohamed Salim and Shawgi Hood Abeid, the driver and owner respectively of the said motor vehicle. Judgment was entered in his favour on 2nd October 2023 for Kshs.200,000/= general damages, Kshs.4,000/= special damages together with costs and interest. The judgment remained unsatisfied, prompting the present declaratory proceedings against the insurer. 3.The Defendant entered appearance and filed a statement of defence denying liability. It denied insuring motor vehicle registration number KBJ 803X under Policy No. P/NO.04039242 and further denied receipt of any statutory notice. It also alleged fraud and forgery in relation to the insurance documents relied upon by the Plaintiff. 4.The matter proceeded for hearing. The record shows that despite entering appearance and filing a defence, the Defendant did not attend the hearing and did not call any witness to support the averments contained in its defence. The Plaintiff's evidence therefore remained uncontroverted. Evidence 5.The Plaintiff relied on the pleadings, witness statement and documentary evidence filed in Court. 6.The evidence placed before the Court established that: On 14th March 2020 the Plaintiff was a lawful fare-paying passenger aboard motor vehicle registration number KBJ 803X along the Mombasa–Malindi Road when the vehicle was involved in an accident near Shell Petrol Station. 7.The Plaintiff sustained injuries and subsequently instituted SRMCC No. E485 of 2020 against Mohamed Salim and Shawgi Hood Abeid. 8.A Police Abstract dated 23rd March 2020 identified Directline Assurance Company Limited as the insurer of motor vehicle registration number KBJ 803X under Policy Number P/NO.04039242. 9.The Plaintiff's advocates issued both a demand letter and a statutory notice dated 23rd March 2020 addressed to the Defendant insurer. 10.The copies produced in evidence bear the Defendant's official stamp acknowledging receipt on 21st April 2020. 11.Judgment was subsequently entered in SRMCC No. E485 of 2020 on 2nd October 2023 awarding the Plaintiff:a.General damages – Kshs.200,000/=b.Special damages – Kshs.4,000/=c.Costs and interest. 12.The decretal amount remained unpaid despite demand. The Plaintiff therefore filed the present declaratory suit seeking satisfaction of the decree by the Defendant insurer. Issues for Determination 13.The issues arising for determination are:i.Whether the Defendant insured motor vehicle registration number KBJ 803X under Policy No. P/NO.04039242.ii.Whether the Defendant was served with the statutory notice contemplated under Section 10(2)(a) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act.iii.Whether the Plaintiff has established a case for a declaratory order under Section 10 of the Act.iv.What orders should issue. Analysis Whether the Defendant insured motor vehicle registration number KBJ 803X 14.The Defendant's principal defence is that it never insured motor vehicle registration number KBJ 803X and that any insurance certificate or sticker linking it to the vehicle was fraudulent. 15.However, no evidence whatsoever was tendered in support of that assertion. 16.The Plaintiff produced a Police Abstract dated 23rd March 2020 showing that motor vehicle registration number KBJ 803X was insured by Directline Assurance Company Limited under Policy Number P/NO.04039242. 17.Although a Police Abstract is not conclusive proof of insurance, it constitutes prima facie evidence of the matters stated therein. Once produced, the evidential burden shifted to the Defendant to rebut the contents thereof. 18.The Defendant neither attended court nor called any witness from its underwriting, claims or records department to demonstrate that the policy did not exist. No insurance register, policy register, underwriting records or any other documentary evidence was produced to rebut the Plaintiff's evidence. 19.It is trite that pleadings are not evidence. Allegations of fraud must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. Mere allegations contained in a defence do not amount to proof. 20.In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has established on a balance of probabilities that motor vehicle registration number KBJ 803X was insured by the Defendant under Policy No. P/NO.04039242. Whether statutory notice was served 21.Section 10(2)(a) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act requires that before or within fourteen days after commencement of proceedings, notice of the bringing of the proceedings be given to the insurer. 22.The Plaintiff produced: A statutory notice dated 23rd March 2020. A demand letter dated 23rd March 2020. 23.The Court has examined the documents and notes that both bear the Defendant's official receiving stamp dated 21st April 2020. 24.Indeed, in the ruling delivered on 30th April 2026, this Court revisited the record and expressly found that the earlier finding of non-service had been erroneous because the documents on record clearly bore the Defendant's acknowledgement stamp. 25.The existence of stamped copies on the Court record is incontrovertible evidence of receipt. 26.I am therefore satisfied that the Defendant received both the statutory notice and the demand letter and that the requirements of Section 10(2)(a) of Cap 405 were fully complied with. Whether the Plaintiff has established a case under Section 10 of Cap 405 27.Section 10(1) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act imposes a statutory obligation upon an insurer to satisfy judgments obtained against persons insured under a policy issued by the insurer in respect of liabilities covered by the policy. 28.The Plaintiff has demonstrated:a.The occurrence of the accident involving motor vehicle KBJ 803X.b.The existence of insurance cover issued by the Defendant.c.Service of the statutory notice.d.Institution of the primary suit.e.Entry of judgment against the insured persons in SRMCC No. E485 of 2020.f.Failure by the insured persons to satisfy the decree. 29.The Defendant has not adduced evidence to challenge any of the foregoing matters. 30.The Court is persuaded by the reasoning in Joseph Mwangi Gitundu v Gateway Insurance Co. Ltd, Nairobi HCCC No. 224 of 2007, cited by the Plaintiff, where it was emphasized that the obligation imposed by Section 10 is statutory and becomes enforceable once the conditions prescribed by the Act have been satisfied. 31.Having satisfied all the statutory requirements, the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration compelling the Defendant to satisfy the decree. Determination 32.The Court finds that: Motor vehicle registration number KBJ 803X was insured by the Defendant under Policy No. P/NO.04039242. The Defendant was duly served with the statutory notice and demand letter. Judgment was lawfully obtained in SRMCC No. E485 of 2020. The Defendant is statutorily bound under Section 10 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act to satisfy the decree arising from that judgment. Final Orders 33.Accordingly, judgment is entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant as follows:a.A declaration be and is hereby issued that the Defendant, Directline Assurance Company Limited, is liable under Section 10 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act, Cap 405 Laws of Kenya, to satisfy the decree issued in Mombasa SRMCC No. E485 of 2020, Ronald Katana Beja v Mohamed Salim & Shawgi Hood Abeid.b.The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the decretal sum of Kshs. 308,800/= arising from Mombasa SRMCC No. E485 of 2020.c.The Defendant shall further pay interest on the said decretal sum at court rates from 2nd October 2023, being the date of judgment in Mombasa SRMCC No. E485 of 2020, until payment in full.d.The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of this declaratory suit together with interest thereon at court rates from the date of taxation until payment in full.e.For avoidance of doubt, upon payment of the decretal sum, interest and costs as aforesaid, the Defendant shall stand discharged from its statutory obligation arising from the judgment in Mombasa SRMCC No. E485 of 2020.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT MOMBASA THIS 25TH JUNE 2026.............................................EMILY M. MWAMUYESENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE