Wamba (As Personal Representative of the Estate of Phillipe Wamba) v UAP Insurance Company
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicable law governing the insurer's liability is that in force at the time of the accident or at a later date (commencement or judgment of the primary suit, or commencement of the declaratory suit)
- 2.Whether the insurer's liability to the third party was capped at Ksh 3,000,000.00 by the policy or by the post-2006 statutory amendments
Key legal issues
#Temporal application of the 2006 and 2009 amendments to the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act
The applicable statutory regime is that in force at the date of the accident; the amendments, not being retrospective, did not apply to a 2002 accident, so the insurer's liability was not capped at Ksh 3,000,000.
Section 4(1) mandates insurance against third-party risks arising from the use of a motor vehicle; the risk covered is the risk at the time of use. Liability arises at the time of the accident, not when a claim is made or adjudged, and the third party's right of action accrues on the day of the accident. Since the amendments lacked retrospective effect and were not faulted on that point, the pre-amendment provisions, which contained no liability cap, governed.
Effect of the 2006 amendment introducing paragraph (iv) to section 5 and the 2009 deletion of section 10(5)
The 2006 amendment marked a shift from limitless insurer liability to a liability that could be capped at Ksh 3,000,000 per claimant; the deletion of section 10(5) in 2009 followed logically because the insurer no longer needed protection against excess payments.
Before the amendment, section 5 required coverage of any liability for death or bodily injury without a monetary cap, and section 10(5) let the insurer recover from the insured sums paid beyond policy limits. Once liability could be capped by contract after 2006, that statutory cushion became unnecessary, explaining the 2009 deletion. The amendments were consequential shifts in the statutory scheme, not idle provisions.
Legal principles established
#- The law applicable to an insurer's statutory third-party liability is the law operative at the time of the accident, not at the time of suit or judgment.
- Prior to the 2006 amendment, section 5 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act imposed no limit on the insurer's liability per claimant, so a policy could not cap liability at Ksh 3,000,000 for accidents before the amendment.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment of the High Court delivered on 17th December 2020 set aside
- 2.Judgment entered for the appellant against the respondent as prayed in the plaint for Ksh. 2,283,362.40 and US$600,000 with interest at court rates from the date of filing of Nairobi HCCC No. 232 of 2014 until payment in full
- 3.Costs of the appeal and of the High Court awarded to the appellant against the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya, Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 232 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act against the judgment and decree of the High Court
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.
The conclusion to be drawn is that the applicable law is that which was operative at the time of the accident, that is on 11th September 2002.
Moreover, prior to the amendment of the Act in 2006 as indicated by the plaintiff, it is apparent Section 5 of the Act did not provide for the limit of liability in respect to insurance policies in the sum of Ksh 3,000,000/
We hereby set aside the judgment of the High Court delivered on 17th December 2020 and in its place enter judgment for the appellant against the respondent as prayed for in the plaint for a sum of Ksh. 2,283, 362.40 and US$600,000 with interest thereon at Court rates from the date when the Nairobi HCCC No. 232 of 2014 was filed until payment in full.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent case number for the declaratory suit
Discrepancy between pleaded amount and decreed amount
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wamba (As Personal Representative of the Estate of Phillipe Wamba) v UAP Insurance Company", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal E302 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1773/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.