Kakyewa alias Daniel Juma v Directline Assurance Company Limited (Civil Case E153 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 316 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an insurer must pay an accident victim's Ksh. 185,652 judgment even after the insurer denied insuring the vehicle.
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 KDD 613H at the time of accident
- 2.Whether the defendant is bound to satisfy the decree in Makindu Small Claims Civil Case No. E131 of 2024
- 3.Who should bear the costs of this suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant insured motor vehicle KDD 613H at the time of the accident
Yes - proven on a balance of probabilities on the strength of the unchallenged police abstract showing the defendant as insurer under policy number 00258786.
The police abstract indicated the defendant was the insurer. Applying by analogy Joel Muga Opija v East African Sea Food Limited, once produced without objection the abstract's contents became evidence. Although a certificate of insurance would have been desirable, the plaintiff as a non-owner could not be expected to hold it. Under section 112 of the Evidence Act, insurance was a fact within the defendant's own knowledge, so the burden shifted to the defendant to disprove it, and its mere denial in pleadings unsupported by evidence was insufficient.
Whether the defendant is bound to satisfy the decree in the primary suit
Yes - section 10(1) of Cap. 405 applies and no statutory exemption avails the defendant.
Judgment was obtained against the defendant's insured, satisfying section 10(1) of Cap. 405. The statutory exemptions under sections 10(2) and 10(4) (no notice of proceedings, stayed execution, cancellation, or a declaration of non-disclosure) were not established. The defendant received statutory notices of intention to sue on 5/9/2024 and 24/9/2024 before the primary suit was instituted, and called no witness to deny service or knowledge of the primary suit.
Who should bear the costs of the suit
The defendant, having lost, was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.
The plaintiff proved his case on a balance of probabilities and obtained the declaration sought; costs followed the event in the ordinary way.
Legal principles established
#- Under section 10(1) of Cap. 405, an insurer must pay sums due under a judgment obtained against an insured notwithstanding any avoidance or cancellation of the policy.
- An unchallenged police abstract listing an insurer is prima facie evidence of insurance, and the party with better knowledge of the fact bears the burden of disproving it.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant
- 2.A declaration that the defendant is bound to satisfy the entire decretal sum in Makindu SCCC No. E131 of 2024 - Daniel Juma Kakyewa alias Daniel Juma v Azan Motors Limited and Cosmas Mulinge
- 3.The defendant to pay the plaintiff the decretal sum of Ksh. 185,652/=
- 4.The defendant to pay accrued interest on the decretal sum at court rates from 3/12/2024 until payment in full
- 5.The plaintiff awarded costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction; declaratory relief under section 10(1) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act Cap. 405
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 SCCC No. E131 of 2024-Daniel Juma Kakyewa alias Daniel Juma v Azan Motors Limited and Cosmas Mulinge;
The defendant is adjudged to pay the plaintifi the decretal sum of Ksh. 185,652/=;
The defendant shall also pay accrued interest on the decretal sum at court rates from 3/12/2024 when interest was last awarded until payment in full;
The plaintifi has satisfied the conditions precedent for granting of the orders sought.
Pleadings remain mere allegations unless and until they are supported by evidence.
Issues in the judgment
#The delivery date contains a typographical error in the month: "THIS 16TH DAY OF DEEMBER, 2025".
The defendant's name does not appear in the judgment text itself; the parties are referred to only as "plaintiff" and "defendant" and the case number of this suit is not stated on the face of the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kakyewa alias Daniel Juma v Directline Assurance Company Limited (Civil Case E153 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 316 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Makindu CMCC (Declaratory Suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/316/eng@2025-12-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.