Mwendwa & another (Suing on their own behalf and as the of the Estate of the Late Daniel Mulinge Mwendwa) v Directline Assurance Company Ltd (Civil Case E202 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 287 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered an insurer to pay Ksh. 2.7 million to accident victims directly, because the insured vehicle's police abstract proved who the insurer was.
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 KCG 884Q at the time of accident
- 2.Whether the defendant is bound to satisfy the decree in Makindu SPMC Civil Case No. E050 of 2022
- 3.Who should bear the costs of this suit?
Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant was the insurer of motor vehicle KCG 884Q at the time of the accident
Proved on a balance of probabilities by the police abstract and certificate of insurance, which were unchallenged
The plaintiffs relied on a police abstract indicating the defendant insured the vehicle under policy number 00136935 TPO and on a copy of the certificate of insurance. Applying by analogy Joel Muga Opija v East African Sea Food Limited, the contents of an unchallenged abstract are evidence. The defendant called no witness, so the evidence remained uncontroverted and was sufficient to prove insurance on a balance of probabilities.
Whether the defendant is bound to satisfy the decree in the primary suit
Yes. Judgment was obtained against the defendant's insured and no statutory exemption under section 10 was established
Section 10(1) of Cap 405 obliges an insurer to satisfy judgments against its insured notwithstanding cancellation or avoidance of the policy. The decree in the primary suit was proved. None of the exemptions in section 10(2), (3A) or (4) was availed of: statutory notice was served on 25/4/2022, execution was not stayed, and the insurer adduced no evidence of entitlement to any exemption.
Legal principles established
#- An unchallenged police abstract and certificate of insurance constitute prima facie proof of insurance of the accident motor vehicle
- Under section 10(1) of Cap 405, an insurer must pay sums due under a judgment obtained against its insured notwithstanding avoidance or cancellation of the policy, unless an exemption under the Act is established
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiffs as against the defendant
- 2.A declaration that the defendant is bound to satisfy the entire decretal sum in Makindu SPMCCC No. E050 of 2022
- 3.The defendant to pay the plaintiffs the decretal sum of Ksh. 2,698,495/=
- 4.The defendant to pay accrued interest on the decretal sum at court rates from 19/3/2025 until payment in full
- 5.The plaintiffs awarded costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original declaratory jurisdiction under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act Cap 405; civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' 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.
A declaration is hereby issued that the defendant is bound to satisfy the entire decretal sum in Makindu SPMCCC No. E050 of 2022;
The defendant is adjudged to pay the plaintiff the decretal sum of Ksh.2,698,495/=;
The defendant shall also pay accrued interest on the decretal sum at court rates from 19/3/2025 when interest was last awarded until payment in full;
The burden was always on the plaintiff to prove his case on the balance of probabilities even if the case was heard on formal proof.
We think, with respect, that the learned Judge in failing to consider in depth the legal position in respect of what is required to prove ownership, erred on point of law on that aspect.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated 30th June 2026 while the plaint recites that the decree was calculated 'as at 19/3/2025' and interlocutory judgment was entered 3/9/2025; the stated judgment date appears to be in the future relative to internal chronology and may be a typographical error
Defendant's name never stated anywhere in the judgment; it is referred to only as 'the defendant'
The case number of the present declaratory suit is not stated in the judgment; only the primary suit number (Makindu SPMCCC No. E050 of 2022) appears
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwendwa & another (Suing on their own behalf and as the of the Estate of the Late Daniel Mulinge Mwendwa) v Directline Assurance Company Ltd (Civil Case E202 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 287 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Makindu SPMCC (Declaratory Suit) – declaratory suit arising from Makindu SPMCCC No. E050 of 2022 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/287/eng@2026-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.