Masari Distributors Limited v UAP Provincial Insurance Company Limited [2019] KECA 95 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to let an insurance dispute reach the Supreme Court, ruling that fact-specific disagreements do not qualify as matters of general public importance.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal raises a matter of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b)
The application fails the certification threshold; the disputed issues were factual and specific to the parties, and the proposed points of law do not warrant the Supreme Court's intervention.
The court applied the Steyn criteria. The applicant's claim was anchored on contesting the concurrent finding that brake failure was a mechanical defect exempted under the policy. The circumstances and cause of the accident were evidentiary matters specific to the parties, and the question of the place of exemption clauses in insurance contracts did not present a novel question of great public importance or a contradiction in earlier decisions causing uncertainty.
Whether the insurer's reliance on an exemption clause was satisfactorily established
The law recognises that an insurer may validly repudiate a policy on an exemption clause, provided the insurer proves the exemption applies - which was achieved in this case.
The court acknowledged that Kenyan law permits an insurer to legitimately void or repudiate a policy where an exemption applies, but the burden lies on the insurer to prove the exemption it relies upon. On the facts, the respondent had discharged that burden before the High Court and Court of Appeal, and no uncertainty in that legal position was demonstrated by the applicant.
Legal principles established
#- A matter merits certification as one of general public importance where a substantial point of law is involved whose determination bears on the public interest, and that point of law must have been raised in the courts below.
- It is not enough for a certification applicant to show that a difficult question of law arose; the question must be an important question of law whose clarification is for the common good.
- Determinations of fact in contests between parties are not, by themselves, a basis for granting certification for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 8th December, 2017 seeking certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal
- Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2013
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 - certification that a matter of general public importance is involved
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Masari Distributors Limited v UAP Provincial Insurance Company Limited [2019] KECA 95 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Application Sup No. 11 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/95/eng@2019-12-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.