Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistratePartially AllowedBungoma CMCC No. 32 of 2025· [2026] KEMC 744 (KLR)

Wakoya v Uap Insurance Company Ltd & another (Civil Case E065 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 744 (KLR)

Chief Magistrate's Court at Bungoma
30 June 2026
TOT.O. Omono
2,538 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Bungoma court ordered an insurer to pay a road accident victim Kshs 1.13 million, holding insurers must prove non-coverage; a COMESA Yellow Card insurer escaped liability.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, a road traffic accident victim, sued two insurers seeking a declaration that they satisfy the decretal sum of Kshs. 972,400/= plus costs and interest (totaling Kshs. 1,130,578.81/=) awarded in her favour in Bungoma CMCC No. 190 of 2017 against their insured, Paul Kiiru Njenga, following an accident of 19th September 2016 on the Eldoret–Webuye road. The insurers denied insuring the vehicle and denied service of statutory notices. They called no evidence, so their defences remained mere allegations. The court found the police abstract, which was uncontroverted, proved that both insurers covered the insured motor vehicle at the time of the accident. Relying on Mbani v Corporate Insurance and APA Insurance v Masele, the court held that an accident victim need not produce the policy; the insurer, as custodian, must disprove coverage. Under sections 10(1) and (2) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, the insurers were bound to satisfy the judgment unless they proved a statutory defence under section 10(4), which they did not. However, the court held that the 1st Defendant's cover was a COMESA Yellow Card under the Northern Corridor Transit and Transport Agreement, which covers only risks outside Kenya, whereas the accident occurred in Kenya; the 1st Defendant was therefore exempted. Judgment was entered against the 2nd Defendant for Kshs. 1,130,578.81/= with interest at court rates and costs; the suit against the 1st Defendant was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the insurers should satisfy the decretal sum in the primary suit

Holding

Partially: the 2nd Defendant was held liable to satisfy the decretal sum; the 1st Defendant was not liable because its COMESA Yellow Card cover did not attach to risks within Kenya

Reasoning

Judgment in the primary suit was entered against the insured on 7th January 2022. A police abstract produced in evidence showed the insured motor vehicle was insured by both Defendants at the time of the accident. The Defendants adduced no evidence to controvert the abstract, so their defences remained mere allegations. Under sections 10(1) and (2) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, the insurer must satisfy the judgment unless it proves a statutory defence under section 10(4); none was proved. However, the 1st Defendant's COMESA Yellow Card only covers risks outside Kenya, so it was exempted.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Uncontroverted entries in a police abstract on a motor vehicle's insurance details prove on a balance of probabilities that the vehicle was insured by the insurer named in the abstract
  • An accident victim need not produce the policy or certificate of insurance; the insurer, as custodian of the policy, must file it or an affidavit denying coverage if it disputes liability
  • A COMESA Yellow Card policy only covers insurance risks within the COMESA region outside the insured vehicle's country of origin

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the 2nd Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff Kshs. 972,400/= being the decretal sum in Bungoma CMCC No. 190 of 2017 plus costs and interest now standing at Kshs. 158,178.81/= all totaling to Kshs. 1,130,578.81/=
  2. 2.The award will earn interest at court rate from the date of filing the suit till payment in full
  3. 3.The Plaintiff to have costs of this suit to be borne by the 2nd Defendant
  4. 4.The case against the 1st Defendant is dismissed with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a declaratory suit against insurers under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wakoya v Uap Insurance Company Ltd & another (Civil Case E065 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 744 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Bungoma CMCC No. 32 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/744/eng@2026-06-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.