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
#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
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original declaratory jurisdiction under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act Cap 405; civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court
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.