Irungu v Directline Assurance Co Ltd (Civil Case E216 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 461 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Murang'a court ordered an insurer to pay a deceased accident victim's KShs 2.9 million judgment after the insurer stayed silent, proving victims can sue insurers directly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a decree was issued in Murang'a CMCC E256 of 2021 against the defendant's insured
Yes - the plaintiff satisfactorily established that judgment was entered in favour of the deceased against Peterson Mwangi Maundu for Kshs. 2,603,550/= plus interest and costs of Kshs. 162,471.25/=.
PW1 produced a police abstract showing the deceased was involved in a road traffic accident with the subject vehicle owned by Peterson Mwangi Maundu, and a copy of the decree issued on 23rd July 2024. The defendant did not assert or prove that either document was inauthentic, and closed its case without calling witnesses. The court therefore accepted the documents as proof that judgment had been entered against the insured in the earlier suit.
Whether the defendant insurer is obliged to settle the decretal sum under Section 10 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act
Yes - the defendant was the insurer of the subject vehicle at the material time, the statutory four-fold test was met, and judgment was entered as sought.
The court adopted the four-fold test from UAP Insurance Co. Ltd v Patrick Charo Chiro: the vehicle was insured by the defendant; there was a judgment against the insured; statutory notice was given (a notice of intention to sue dated 17th February 2021 was received on 5th March 2021, and the defendant's reply showed awareness of the impending suit); and the plaintiff was covered under the policy as a lawful passenger. The defendant challenged service of the statutory notice but adduced no evidence to counter the plaintiff's case.
Whether the police abstract sufficed to prove that the defendant insured the subject vehicle
Yes - unchallenged, the police abstract was sufficient proof of insurance at the material time.
Relying on Esther Muthoni Munyiri v Amaco Insurance Company Limited, which quoted Mabeya J in APA Insurance Co Ltd v George Masele and the Court of Appeal in Joel Muna Opija v East African Sea Food Ltd, the court reasoned that the certificate of insurance is in the exclusive possession of insured and insurer and inaccessible to accident victims. Since the defendant did not challenge the abstract through evidence, its contents stood as sufficient proof of insurance.
Legal principles established
#- Under Section 10(1) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, an insurer must pay sums due under a judgment obtained against its insured, including costs and interest, notwithstanding that the insurer may have avoided or cancelled the policy.
- A police abstract produced without objection is sufficient proof of ownership of a vehicle and of the insurance details, where the insurer does not controvert its contents.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant as sought in the plaint amended on 3rd May 2025, namely: a declaration that the defendant is under a statutory obligation to indemnify Peterson Mwangi Maundu in Murang'a CMCC E256 of 2021 by satisfying the decree in that case
- 2.An order that the defendant pays to the plaintiff the sum adjudged in the decree in Murang'a CMCC E256 of 2021 together with further accrued interest
- 3.Costs of this suit
- 4.Interest
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance civil suit; plaintiff sues under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, specifically Section 10, requiring the insurer to satisfy a judgment obtained against its insured
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Irungu v Directline Assurance Co Ltd (Civil Case E216 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 461 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (plaint amended on 3rd May 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/461/eng@2026-07-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.