Margaret Adhiambo Koi v Kenya Alliance Insurance Company Limited
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court ordered Kenya Alliance Insurance to pay an accident victim Kshs 374,216 because the insurer offered no evidence to escape liability.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the motor vehicle was insured by the Defendant
Yes, on a balance of probabilities; the Plaintiff produced documentary evidence identifying the Defendant as insurer, and the Defendant adduced no evidence that the vehicle was insured elsewhere or that the policy did not exist.
The initial burden lay on the Plaintiff, but once she produced documents identifying the insurer and policy particulars, the evidential burden shifted to the insurer, whose bare denial without rebuttal evidence was insufficient. The court followed Munyoki and Directline Assurance on shifting the evidential burden.
Whether the claim fell within section 5(b) of Cap. 405
Yes; bodily injuries sustained by a passenger in the insured vehicle fall within the liability required to be covered by section 5(b).
Section 5(b) covers death or bodily injury arising from use of the insured vehicle on a road. The claim was for bodily injury, distinct from material damage claims which do not ordinarily ground a declaratory action under section 10. The court relied on Madison General v Sadera citing David Kinyanjui.
Whether statutory requirements, including notice, were satisfied
Yes; the Plaintiff established requisite notice to the Defendant.
Section 10(2) permits an insurer to resist liability on specified grounds, including lack of notice. The Plaintiff relied on documentary exhibits showing notice; the Defendant called no evidence to demonstrate it lacked notice or that statutory requirements were unmet. The court was satisfied notice was established.
Whether the Defendant is liable to satisfy the judgment
Yes; the Defendant did not obtain a declaration under section 10(4) or otherwise demonstrate a statutory basis for avoiding the policy.
Section 10(1) is mandatory where statutory conditions are met. An insurer must invoke the section 10(4) procedure to avoid liability on statutory grounds; bare denial is insufficient. The Defendant produced no section 10(4) declaration, so liability to pay the decretal sum with interest and costs, subject to statutory limits, followed.
Legal principles established
#- Where a claimant produces evidence of insurance and the insurer issues only bare denials without rebutting evidence, the evidential burden shifts to the insurer.
- Where statutory conditions under section 10 are satisfied, an insurer is mandatorily required to satisfy the judgment, including costs and interest, subject to statutory limits; bare denial without a section 10(4) declaration cannot defeat the claim.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Defendant, as insurer of Motor Vehicle Registration Number KMCJ 364 T, is liable under section 10 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act, Cap. 405 to satisfy the judgment obtained against its insured, King Bird (K) Limited, in Nakuru CMCC No. 677 of 2012
- 2.The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the sum of Kshs. 374,216.22
- 3.The said sum shall attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 4.The Defendant shall pay the costs of the suit to the Plaintiff
- 5.The Defendant's liability is subject to the applicable statutory limits and the terms of the relevant policy insofar as permitted by law
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Declaratory suit under the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act, Cap. 405, sections 5(b) and 10
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Margaret Adhiambo Koi v Kenya Alliance Insurance Company Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Suit No. 611 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/937/eng@2026-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.