Mwangi & another v Occidental Insurance Company Ltd (Civil Case E128 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 491 (KLR)

4. The 1 st plaintifi, George Ng’ang’a Mwangi (PW1), testified as the sole witness and adduced evidence in support of the plaintifis’ case. Thereafter, the plaintifis’ learned counsel filed written submissions, which this court has duly considered. Issues, Analysis and Determination 5. In order to determine whether the plaintifis’ suit is merited, the evidence presented by the plaintifis must answer the following main issues in the afirmative; a. That judgment was entered in favor of the plaintifis in Murang’a Small Claims Civil Case E171 of 2024, and if so; b. Whether the defendant is statutorily required to settle the decretal sum in the matter. 6. In support of the claim against the defendant, PW1 produced a copy of a police abstract issued with respect to the accident. The police abstract showed that plaintifis’ motor vehicle registration number KDD 311S was involved in a road trafic accident with motor cycle registration number KMFY 598T on 20th July 2024 at Mugoiri area along Murang’a/Kahuro road. The police abstract noted that the owners of the motorcycle were Peter Ndonye Njuguna and MOGO Auto LTD. 7. The plaintifi also produced a copy of a decree issued in the original suit filed by the plaintifis’ herein. The decree which was issued on 17th February 2025, indicates that judgment was entered in the plaintifis’ favor against Peter Ndonye Njuguna for a sum of Kshs. 87,130/= together with costs of Kshs. 30,500/= and interest at court rates. The defendant did not assert or prove that the copy of police abstract or decree were not authentic. Consequently, this court finds that the plaintifi satisfactorily established that judgment was entered in favor of the plaintifis in the original suit against Peter Ndonye Njuguna and MOGO Auto LTD, the owners of the subject motorcycle. 8. As to whether the defendant is required to settle the decretal sum in the original suit, the plaintifis assert that the defendant is under a statutory obligation to satisfy the decretal sum under the provisions of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act. Specifically, Section 10 (2) of the Act provides that an insurer is required to settle any judgment, costs and interest against its insured. The provision stipulates; 10 (1) 9. If, after a policy of insurance has been efiected, judgment in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under paragraph (b) of section 5 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel, or may have avoided or cancelled, the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the persons entitled to the benefit of the judgment any sum payable thereunder in respect of the liability, including any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. In the case of UAP Insurance Co. Ltd v Patrick Charo Chiro [2021]KEHC 6557 (KLR) the court analyzed the foregoing provision and held as follows; 16. The import of the above provision of the law is that for liability to accrue under section 10 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act CAP 405, there is a 4-fold test to be met. Firstly, that the motor vehicle in question was insured by the appellant; Secondly, that the respondent has a judgement in his favour against the insured; Thirdly, that statutory notice https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/491/eng@2026-08-05 2

page 2 of 3

was issued to the insurer either at least 14 days before the filing of the suit wherein judgement has been obtained or within 30 days of filing the suit where judgement has been obtained and finally the respondent was a person covered by the insurance policy. See Roseline Violet Akinyi v Celestine Opiyo Wangwau (2020) eKLR and Stephen Kiarie Chege v Insurance Regulatory Authority & Another (2009) eKLR. 10. The plaintifi produced a copy of the police abstract to prove that the defendant in the original suit, Peter Ndonye Njuguna was the owner of the subject motorcycle and that he was the defendant’s insured at the material time. He also produced a copy of a certificate of insurance to show that the subject motorcycle was insured by the defendant herein under policy number COMP/MCB/ 20472/04. The defendant did not challenge the production of the police abstract nor the copy of the certificate of insurance. Consequently, the same are taken as conclusive proof of the fact that the defendant herein had insured the subject motorcycle at the material time and that the policy cover had been issued to Peter Ndonye Njuguna, the judgment debtor in the original suit. 11. It was also the plaintifi’s unchallenged evidence that a statutory notice was issued and served upon the defendant as required. PW1 produced a copy of the statutory notice dated 26th August 2024 written to the defendant’s Claim Manager notifying them of the impending suit against its insured. Accordingly, this court finds that the plaintifis proved to the required that the defendant is statutorily bound to settle the decretal sum in the original suit. Conclusion 12. 13. The upshot of the foregoing analysis is that judgment is entered in favour of the plaintifis against the defendant as follows; a. A declaration is hereby issued that the defendant is statutorily bound to settle the decretal amount in Murang’a Small Claims Civil Case E171 of 2024 being Kshs. 117,630/= together with accrued interest at court rates with efiect from the date of judgment in Murang’a Small Claims Civil Case E171 of 2024 until payment in full; b. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay Kshs. 117,630/= to the plaintifis being the decretal amount in Murang’a Small Claims Civil Case E171 of 2024 together with accrued interest at court rates from the date of judgment in Murang’a Small Claims Civil Case E171 of 2024 until payment in full; The plaintifis shall have the costs of the suit together with interest until payment in full. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026. HON. GRACE WAITHĨRA SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE Judgment read on the virtual platform at 11:19 a.m. in the presence of; C/A Muya Mr. Mwangi for the Plaintifi No Appearance for the Defendant Signed by/for: HON. GRACE WAITHĨRA SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/491/eng@2026-08-05 3

page 3 of 3