[2018] KEHC 5428 (KLR)
The court held that, in the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, an acting Commissioner of Insurance is empowered to exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the substantive Commissioner under the Insurance Act. Section 43 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act provides that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 5428 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sammy M. Makove; Applicant: Godfrey K. Kiptum; Respondent: Blueshield Insurance Company (under statutory management); Interested Party: Shareholders, Blueshield Insurance Company
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 547 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Substitution of Applicant
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- F Tuiyott
- Legal Topics
- Statutory Management, Powers of Acting Officer, Insurance Regulation
- 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
Sammy M. Makove
Applicant
Godfrey K. Kiptum
Applicant
Blueshield Insurance Company (under statutory management)
Respondent
Shareholders, Blueshield Insurance Company
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Substitution of Applicant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an acting Commissioner of Insurance can exercise the statutory powers of a substantive Commissioner under the Insurance Act.
- 2 Whether the name of the applicant should be substituted to reflect the current acting Commissioner of Insurance.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, in the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, an acting Commissioner of Insurance is empowered to exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the substantive Commissioner under the Insurance Act. Section 43 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act provides that powers and duties conferred on the holder of an office may be exercised by the person for the time being holding that office, unless a contrary intention appears. The court found no provision in the Insurance Act or any other statute that restricts an acting Commissioner from performing these functions. Interpreting the law otherwise would undermine the protection of...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion dated 9th March 2017 is allowed: the name of Sammy Makove is substituted with that of Godfrey K. Kiptum as applicant.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL & ADMIRALTY DIVISION
MISC NO. 547 OF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF BLUESHIELD INSURANCE CO. LIMITED
(UNDER STATUTORY MANAGEMENT)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: COMPANIES ACT (CAP 486 LAWS OF KENYA)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT
(CAP 487 LAWS OF KENYA)
SAMMY M. MAKOVE, COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE...APPLICANT
VERSUS
BLUESHIELD INSURANCE COMPANY.................................RESPONDENT
(UNDER STATUTORY MANAGEMENT)
SHAREHOLDERS, BLUESHIELD
INSURANCE COMPANY................................................INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. As of the date of this Ruling Godfrey K. Kiptum is the acting Commissioner of Insurance and Chief Executive Officer of the Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA) having been appointed on 26th November 2016.
2. Prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion of 9th March 2017 seeks to have the name of Sammy Makove removed from the cause herein as the Applicant and his name replaced by that of Godfrey K. Kiptum.
3. It is not disputed that Mr. Makove had been named as the Applicant in his capacity as The Commissioner of Insurance and Mr. Godfrey K. Kiptum is sought to be brought in his Official capacity.
4. That Application is resisted and Mr. Mboya for the Interested Parties asserts that the Powers of The Commissioner of Insurance under the Provisions of The Insurance Act cannot be exercised by a person holding that office in acting capacity. The Court is asked to find that in the absence of a substantive Commissioner of Insurance IRA is in a state of slumber.
5. I do not understand the Interested Parties to be questioning the manner of Appointment of Mr. Kiptum to an acting capacity, what they say however is that in this acting capacity Mr. Kiptum cannot carry out the functions or exercise the Powers of a substantive Commissioner of Insurance. In essence that he is a lame duck.
6. The Commissioner of Insurance is appointed under the Provisions of Section 3E of The Insurance Act. The Act does not have any provisions for the Appointment of an Acting Commissioner. But as stated earlier it is not the case for the Interested Parties that Mr. Kiptum holds that office in Acting Capacity illegal. This Court will therefore proceed on the premise that the Appointment is within the confines of the law.
7. The answer as to whether Mr. Kiptum can exercise the substantive Powers of the Commissioner of Insurance in respect to the matter before Court would be found in Section 43 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act:-
“where a written law confers a Power or imposes a duty on the holder of an office as such, then, unless a contrary intention appears, the power may be exercised and the duty shall be performed by the person for the time being holding that office”.
8. Mr. Kiptum is for the time being the holder of the office of The Commissioner of Insurance, albeit, in Acting Capacity. And this Court has not found a provision in the Insurance Act or any other Statute that suggests that a person holding that office in Acting capacity cannot perform the functions of or exercise the power of a substantive Commissioner for Insurance and in particular in respect to the functions bestowed on and/or Power conferred on that office under part VI A of the Act around which the matter in Court substantially revolve.
9. Time and time again, The Insurance Act assigns to the Commissioner of Insurance roles in the protection of the interests of the insuring public, beneficiaries and claimants. It behoves on this Court to construe or interpret the law in a manner that props and promotes the objects of the Insurance Act. To reach a construction that an Acting Commissioner of Insurance cannot exercise the Power of a substantive Commissioner under part VI A of The Act and that as suggested by Counsel for the Interested Parties, the IRA is in a state of slumber in the absence of a substantive CEO, would be inimical to the protection of policyholders, beneficiaries and claimants.
10. As would be clear, I am for allowing the application. Prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion dated 9th March 2017 is hereby allowed. Costs in the cause.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in Court at Nairobi this 13th day of April, 2017.
F. TUIYOTT
JUDGE
PRESENT;
Olgo h/b for Kambuni for Statutory Manager
Mboya for Shareholders
N/A for Applicant
Alex - Court Clerk