Intra Africa Assurance Company Limited v Simon N. Njoroge & Avertano Da Costa
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed insurers only need to file their avoidance suit within three months of accident proceedings starting — not obtain the declaration itself in that window.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether section 10(4) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act requires an insurer to obtain a declaration either before or within three months after the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment for damages was given
- 2.Whether the trial Judge erred in construing section 10(4) as imposing a three-month time precondition on obtaining the declaration
- 3.Whether the trial Judge, having granted the declaration as prayed, was entitled to express an opinion on whether the declaration would protect the insurer against third parties
Key legal issues
#Interpretation of section 10(4) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act (Cap. 405)
The sub-section requires only that the insurer's action for a declaration be commenced before, or within three months after, the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment was given; it does not require the declaration itself to be obtained within that period.
The court applied the plain meaning of section 10(4), reading it as an exception to the general rule in section 10(1) that an insurer must pay judgments despite entitlement to avoid the policy. On its plain words, the conditions are (a) filing an action before or within three months after commencement of the damages proceedings and (b) obtaining a declaration of entitlement to avoid the policy. The statute fixes no deadline for obtaining the declaration itself, so the trial Judge's contrary construction was erroneous.
Whether the trial Judge's remarks protecting third parties under section 10 could stand
The remarks were gratuitous, as no issue on the effect of the declaration against third parties was before the trial court, and were set aside.
Having granted the declaration as prayed in the plaint, the trial Judge went further to opine that the declaration only entitled the insurer to claim indemnity and did not protect it against third parties satisfying section 10. The Court of Appeal held there was no such issue before the trial Judge, so the opinion was purely gratuitous and had to be set aside, while the declaration itself remained intact.
Legal principles established
#- Section 10(4) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act does not lay down a precondition that the insurer's declaration must be obtained either before or within three months of the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment sought to be enforced was given; the action must merely be commenced within that window.
- A trial court should not express an opinion on an issue that was not pleaded or before it; such a gratuitous holding is liable to be set aside on appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed
- 2.The gratuitous opinion of the trial Judge that the declaration in no way protects the insurer against third parties is set aside
- 3.The appellant to have three-fourths of the costs of the appeal against the 1st respondent
- 4.No order of costs against the 2nd respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 2761 of 1983
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the High Court under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (statutory appeal, Civil Appeal 111 of 1996)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the declaration itself granted by the High Court
The trial Judge had granted the declaration in terms of the appellant's own prayer in the plaint, so the grounds attacking the grant of the declaration had no point
Costs
The appellant shall have three fourths of the costs of the appeal against the 1st respondent; no order of costs against the 2nd respondent as he did not oppose the appeal.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the gratuitous opinion of the trial Judge namely, "the declaration entitles the plaintiff to claim indemnity from the defendant but in no way protects it against third parties who are able to satisfy the requirement of s.10 above."
With respect to the learned trial Judge this sub-section cannot be interpreted as laying down a precondition that the aforesaid declaration must be obtained either before or within 3 months of the commencement of the proceeding in which the judgment sought to be enforced was given.
The appellant shall have three fourths of the costs of the appeal against the 1st respondent. As the 2nd respondent did not oppose the appeal we do not make any order of costs against him.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's opening narrative states the appellant issued the policy on 17th November, 1980 in consideration of the premium, but the policy period is stated as 31st October, 1980 to 30th October, 1981; the dates are internally inconsistent on the face of the judgment.
The judgment states the appellant sued the 1st respondent 'on or about 3rd August, 1993' in the suit described as Civil Case No. 2761 of 1983, which is internally inconsistent as to the year of filing.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Intra Africa Assurance Company Limited v Simon N. Njoroge & Avertano Da Costa", Case Analysis (1997). Civil Appeal 111 of 1996. Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.