Kasina v Ena Investment Ltd (Claim E8814 of 2024) [2025] SCC 53 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan insurer recovered what it paid to fix an insured car after a crash, because the other driver offered no evidence to defend the claim.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claim was properly instituted under the doctrine of subrogation
The court was satisfied the claim was properly instituted under the doctrine of subrogation, the insurer having indemnified the insured.
Relying on Eastern Produce Kenya Ltd v Rongai Workshop & Transporters Ltd, which quoted Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v Julius Wambale & Another, the court reiterated that where an insurer compensates its insured for loss caused by a third party, the insurer may step into the shoes of the insured and seek indemnity from the third party in the insured's name with consent. The court found the claim before it satisfied these parameters.
Liability for the accident
The Respondent was found 100% liable for the accident.
The Respondent neither filed witness statements nor documents and led no evidence despite the consent to proceed under section 30 of the Act. Pleadings without evidence have no probative value, so the Claimant's uncontroverted account of how the accident occurred stood unchallenged. Following Karuru Munyororo v Joseph Ndumia Murage & Another, the court held it could not disbelieve the Claimant's version and attributed full liability to the Respondent.
Quantum of the subrogated claim
The Claimant proved special damages of Kshs. 246,560/= being repairs, assessment fees, tracing fees and re-inspection fees.
Under subrogation an insurer may recover only what it proves it paid to make good the insured's loss. The Claimant produced cheques dated 17th August 2023 and payment vouchers proving that Kshs. 246,560/= (repairs Kshs. 215,080/=, assessment fees Kshs. 6,380/=, tracing fees Kshs. 22,200/=, re-inspection fees Kshs. 2,900/=) was expended. The court found this proved to the required standard.
Legal principles established
#- Under the doctrine of subrogation, an insurer that has indemnified its insured is entitled to step into the shoes of the insured and seek indemnity from a third party, but the insurer can only recover the sum it proves to have paid.
- Pleadings that are not supported by evidence remain mere statements of fact with no probative value; a consent to proceed under section 30 does not convert averments into evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.Liability 100% in favour of the Claimant
- 2.Judgment entered against the Respondent for the sum of Kshs. 246,560/=
- 3.The sum of Kshs. 246,560/= to earn interest at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 4.Costs of the claim assessed at Kshs. 30,000/= to the Claimant
- 5.Certificate of costs and decree to issue forthwith
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act (the Act), by consent of the parties; claim instituted under the doctrine of subrogation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kasina v Ena Investment Ltd (Claim E8814 of 2024) [2025] SCC 53 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/53/eng@2025-08-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.