Abdinuur & another v Monarch Insurance Co. Limited & another (Civil Case 239B of 2023) [2026] KEMC 63 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenyan insurers cannot be forced to pay for vehicle damage claims; compulsory third-party insurance only covers death or bodily injury.
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 defendant was the insurer of motor vehicle registration number KAR 843F vide policy number MSA/0800/000152/13 TPO at the time of accident
- 2.Whether the defendant is bound to satisfy the decree in Makindu SPMCC No. 186 of 2016
- 3.Who should bear the costs of this suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant was the insurer of KAR 843F at the time of the accident
Yes - the plaintiffs proved on a balance of probabilities that the defendant insured the vehicle, the certificate of insurance being uncontroverted
The plaintiffs produced a certificate of insurance in evidence; the defendant called no witness and adduced no contrary evidence. Applying sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act and the balance of probabilities standard, the court found the insurance relationship established, though this finding did not ultimately help the plaintiffs.
Whether the defendant is bound to satisfy the decree in Makindu SPMCC No. 186 of 2016
No - the claim was a material damage claim outside the scope of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act
Although judgment was obtained against the insured and the defendant had notice of the proceedings, section 10 must be read with section 5 of Cap 405, which requires the policy to cover death of or bodily injury to persons. Following David Kinyanjui v Meshack Omari Monyori and subsequent High Court decisions, a material damage claim does not impose a statutory duty on the insurer to satisfy the decree.
Who should bear the costs of this suit
The defendant, having succeeded, was awarded costs
Costs follow the event; the suit having been dismissed with the declaration sought refused, the defendant was awarded costs of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- Section 10 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act must be read together with section 5, and the Act covers only claims for death or bodily injury, not material damage claims
- A party suffering material damage cannot proceed against the tortfeasor's insurer, as there is no provision in Kenyan law for such eventuality
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration is hereby issued that the defendant is NOT BOUND to satisfy the judgment or the decretal sum in Makindu SPMCC No. 186 of 2016
- 2.The suit against the defendant is hereby dismissed
- 3.The defendant is awarded costs of this suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a declaratory suit on insurance indemnity (suit transferred from the High Court at Mombasa)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the defendant is liable to indemnify the plaintiffs and make good to the interested party the entire decretal sum in Makindu Civil Suit No. 186 of 2016
The claim in the primary suit was a material damage claim, which falls outside the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act
Order directing the defendant to pay the entire decretal sum and all amounts consequential thereto
The plaintiffs failed to prove their case on a balance of probabilities as the claim was not covered by the Act
Costs
The defendant is awarded costs of this suit.
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.
A declaration is hereby issued that the defendant is NOT BOUND to satisfy the judgment or the decretal sum in Makindu SPMCC No. 186 of 2016
In view of the foregoing, I find that the plaintifis have failed to prove their case against the defendant on a balance of probabilities.
The law is clear that a claim under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act relates to death or personal injury to persons covered under the Act. A claim based on material damage is outside the ambit of the Act. On that ground alone, the suit must of necessity fail.
The burden was always on the plaintifi to prove his case on the balance of probabilities even if the case was heard on formal proof.
Issues in the judgment
#A decision cited as followed is dated 2026 while the judgment itself is dated 17 March 2026; the citation 'Madison Insurance v Procel Transport Limited [2026] KEHC 3034 (KLR)' also bears the same year, which may be an error in the judgment
The case number and neutral citation of this suit are not stated anywhere in the judgment text provided
Numbering anomaly: paragraph 11 is missing; the evidence sequence jumps from paragraph 10 to paragraph 12
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdinuur & another v Monarch Insurance Co. Limited & another (Civil Case 239B of 2023) [2026] KEMC 63 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/63/eng@2026-03-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.