Kajawo v Kaluba & Re-Union Insurance Company Limited (Civil Cause 174 of 2017) [2021] MWHC 260 (8 February 2021)
The claim against the 2nd respondent is dismissed because there was no evidence of an insurance contract between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent at the material time.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] MWHC 260
- Parties
- Claimant: Geoffrey Kajawo; 1st Respondent: Charles Kaluba; 2nd Respondent: Re Union Insurance Company Limited
- Court
- High Court of Malawi
- Jurisdiction
- Malawi
- Case Number
- Civil Cause 174 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim against 2nd respondent dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Motor Vehicle Accident, Damages, Insurance Liability
- 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
Geoffrey Kajawo
Claimant
Charles Kaluba
1st Respondent
Re Union Insurance Company Limited
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2nd respondent insured the 1st respondent's vehicle at the material time
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to damages from the 2nd respondent
Ratio Decidendi
The claim against the 2nd respondent is dismissed because there was no evidence of an insurance contract between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent at the material time.
Court Disposition
claim against 2nd respondent dismissed
Orders
- Claim against the 2nd respondent is dismissed.
- Right of appeal to the Supreme Court within 30 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI LILONGWE DISTRICT REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE NO: 174 OF 2017 BETWEEN: GEOFFREY KAJAWO AND CHARLES KALUBA RE UNION INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED CORUM : JUSTICE RUTH M. CHINANGWA Banda Counsel for Claimants Mapemba Counsel for Respondents Nyirenda Court Clerk JUDGEMENT CLAIMANT 1st RESPONDENT 2nd RESPONDENT The claimant claims damages for pain and suffering; damages for loss of amenities of life, damages for disfigurement, special damages (cost of medical report and police report) and costs of the action. It was alleged that the claimant was one of the two passengers in motor vehicle registration number BS 3990 Toyota Quantum driven by Rick Phonela. On or about 29th September 2015 at 9:30 hours, the 1st defendant was driving Toyota Corrolla with three passengers on board. The said Toyota Corrolla was heading towards Lilongwe from Dedza along Ml Road. Upon arrival at Nyemba Village Graveyard the 1st defendant lost control of ' the motor vehicle and encroached on the offside lane where he collided head on with the said Toyota Quantum minibus. In defence, the defendants argued that the 1st defendant vehicle was not insured by the 2nd defendants. The claimants did not produce any evidence to the contrary regarding the insurance of the 1st defendant’s vehicle at the material time of the accident. Insurance claims are premised largely on the agreement that the parties entered into. There being no contractual agreement, there can be no claim against the 2nd defendants. The claim against the 2nd defendant is thus dismissed. Any aggrieved party has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court within 30 days from date of pronouncement. Pronounced this_8^_Efibruary 2021 atLILONGWE JUDGE