Madison Insurance Company Kenya Limited v. Daniel Achakai Okasiba
The bottom line
#When claiming insurance money, you must prove the exact amount you are owed, and the written policy terms are the final word.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Interpretation of written insurance contracts and the parol evidence rule
The lower court ought to have strictly relied on the policy documents; the sum assured payable at maturity was Kshs. 25,600/= per policy (stated elsewhere as Kshs. 26,500/=) plus unpaid bonuses, not the Kshs. 120,000/= claimed.
The court applied the parol evidence rule as cited in Prudential Assurance, holding that the formal contract records the bargain and the parties' true intentions. The policy documents showed a basic sum assured with bonus participation and an optional cash-back feature for which there was no evidence the Respondent signed up.
Burden of proof on the plaintiff to justify sums claimed
It was a misdirection for the trial magistrate to award the sum claimed without justification; the Respondent's figures in the Directions for Payment Forms were unexplained and unproved.
Relying on Section 107(1) of the Evidence Act and Serraco Limited v. Attorney General, the court held that averments must be proved on a balance of probabilities and that unproved averments are not evidence on which a decision can be founded. The Respondent never explained the basis of the figures he claimed.
Whether the sum assured and bonuses were paid
The Respondent admitted receiving Kshs. 51,200/=; only the conceded premium overpayment of Kshs. 2,000/= and the lumpsum bonus of Kshs. 1,684/= remained unpaid, totalling Kshs. 3,684/=.
DW1 testified that payment of Kshs. 53,384/= was made vide Cheque No. 205680, and the Respondent's own witness statement in the Supplementary Record of Appeal admitted receipt of Kshs. 51,200/=. The court therefore found only the overpayment and bonus outstanding.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the court must re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own independent conclusions, while making allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
- No parol or extrinsic evidence is admissible to contradict, vary or alter the terms of a written contract; interpretation must be found in the document itself.
- A party who desires judgment on facts he asserts bears the burden of proving those facts; unproved averments are not evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed with costs
- 2.Lower court's judgment dated 23 February 2015 set aside
- 3.Judgment substituted with judgment in the Respondent's favour for Kshs. 3,684/= only
- 4.Interest at court rates from the date of the lower court judgment
- 5.Costs of the lower court to the Respondent
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court, Eldoret
- Eldoret Chief Magistrate’s Civil Case No. 612 of 2010
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the Principal Magistrate's Court (appellate jurisdiction of the High Court over subordinate court civil appeals)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Madison Insurance Company Kenya Limited v. Daniel Achakai Okasiba", Case Analysis (2020). Eldoret Chief Magistrate’s Civil Case No. 612 of 2010 (appeal therefrom). Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.