Muindi v Trident Insurance Company Limited (Civil Case E465 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 93 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered an insurer to pay Ksh. 3 million to an accident victim, showing insurers can be sued directly but payouts are capped by law.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant was the insurer of the accident motor vehicle
Yes, proven on a balance of probabilities on the unchallenged evidence of the police abstract and certificate of insurance
The plaintiff relied on the police abstract and the certificate of insurance, both indicating the defendant insured vehicle KAR 922Q under policy number 110/070/1/073879/2019. The defendant filed no defence and adduced no evidence, so the evidence stood unchallenged. Applying sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act and the civil standard of balance of probabilities, the court found the fact of insurance proved.
Whether the defendant is bound to satisfy the decree in the primary suit
Yes. Judgment was obtained against the defendant's insured and none of the statutory exemptions under section 10 was established
Section 10(1) of Cap. 405 requires that judgment be obtained against a person insured by the policy. The plaintiff produced the plaint and decree in Makindu SPMCC No. E051 of 2020, and with proof of insurance the court was satisfied judgment was against the defendant's insured. The insurer failed to show any exemption under section 10(2) or 10(4), and the evidence showed it had notice of intention to sue and of entry of judgment on 12/10/2023.
The extent of the insurer's liability
Liability capped at Ksh. 3,000,000 under section 5(b)(iv), with interest and costs of the suit payable
Although the decretal sum in the primary suit stood at Ksh. 4,610,373, section 10(1) proviso limits the sum payable to the maximum percentage specified in section 5(b) prescribed in the Schedule. Applying section 5(b)(iv), the court capped the insurer's payment at Ksh. 3,000,000 but awarded accrued interest at court rates from the date of filing the declaratory suit and costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Legal principles established
#- Where judgment is obtained against an insured under a policy, section 10(1) of Cap. 405 obliges the insurer to pay the judgment sum notwithstanding any entitlement to avoid or cancel the policy, subject to statutory exemptions and the cap in section 5(b).
- The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his case on a balance of probabilities even where the case is heard on formal proof or in default of defence.
Court orders
#- 1.Final Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant
- 2.A declaration is hereby issued that the defendant is bound to satisfy the judgment or the decretal sum in Makindu SPMCC No. E051 of 2020
- 3.Pursuant to section 5(b)(iv) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, the defendant shall pay the maximum sum of Ksh. 3,000,000/= to the plaintiff
- 4.The defendant shall also pay accrued interest on the decretal sum at court rates from 31/10/2025 to the date of this judgment
- 5.The plaintiff is awarded costs of this suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original declaratory jurisdiction under the civil procedure framework read with the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act Cap. 405; judgment in default entered under Order 10 rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muindi v Trident Insurance Company Limited (Civil Case E465 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 93 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (declaratory suit filed 31/10/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/93/eng@2026-03-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.