RUTH NDUKU NZIOKA VS APA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

1. The   appellant filed Makindu PMCC 325/2013 against    Akamba   Public Road Services Ltd &   Bonface Kioko. At    some   point  during  the   trial , the appellant   (then  the plaintiff)  amended  the  plaint  and  removed  Akamba  Public  Road  Services   Ltd   and  proceeded   with the  suit  against Bonface  Kioko.
2. In  the  judgment   delivered   by  the trial  magistrate   is  that  case  on 13/12/2018    the  defendant  was  described     as  the “Sole  registered  owner/beneficial   owner  of   the   motor  vehicle   registration  no. KBE 297V   being driven    by their    agents, driver or servant.” 
3. The  plaintiff ‘s   prayer   was for  judgment   against  the defendant   for  special   damages,  general   damages   for  pain  suffering    &  loss  of  amenities  &  costs  of  the  suit plus  interest. 
4. Judgment    was entered   against the   defendant - Bonface  Kioko  at  Kshs.  762,500 by Hon.  J.D Karani SRM. 
5. The  appellant  proceeded to    file  Makindu  PMCC  201/2019  on 17/7/2019  seeking  a declaration  that  the defendant is  liable   to  settle  the decretal  amount  owing    in Makindu PMCC  325/2013   plus   costs  &  interest. 
6. The  ground  for that  prayer    is  that the accident    subject  to the suit  in Makindu  PMCC  325/2023   happened  during  the currency  of  the Insurance  Policy  issued   by the defendant  with  respect  to  M/V  Reg. No.   KBE 297V,  and  that  the  accident  that  happened   on 6/2/2011  involving   the  said  motor vehicle   and the deceased  - was  as  the  result  of  the negligence  of  the defendant’s  insured   driver. 
7. The defendant  filed  a defence   on 2/10/2019  and denied    the  claim -  1st  that  the  defendant  had  not issued   the policy  referenced    in the primary suit   -  titled  - P/10/2008/1802/1036 TPO.
8. The defendant   also denied that the defendant   was its    insured’s    driver/or its insured   at all.
9. Hon.  J.D  Karani   heard   the  suit  and came  to the conclusion  that  the defendant  in Makindu  PMCC  325/2013  was  not  the insured   of the motor  vehicle  and the  time  the  accident  happened.  That  the plaintiff had  failed  to prove  its  case  and the case  was  dismissed  with costs.
10. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed   this appeal.  It  was  canvased  by  way  of written   submissions  which  I  have  considered. 
11. The appellant  has  set  out  ground of  appeal -  6  of  them 
1) That the honourable magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to appreciate the purpose to which the insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act, Cap 405, was enacted to cure and hence fell into error in dismissing the plaintiffs suit.
2) That the honourable magistrate erred in law and fact in holding that judgment obtained against a driver employed by a limited liability company at the date of accident, is not enforceable against the insurance company for purposes of the provisions of Cap 405 Laws of Kenya.
3) That the honourable magistrate erred in law and fact in considering irrelevant and extraneous matters not before her and arrived at a wrong decision yet this was only a declaratory suit before her.
4) That the honourable magistrate erred in law and fact in failing appreciate that a party has a right to amend his pleadings at any time before judgment and more so where the defendant has in his pleadings and evidence before court admitted that they had insured motor vehicle registration KBE 297V as at the date of the accident on 6/2/2011 for
purposes of Cap 405 Laws of Kenya and that they had been served with a statutory notice on 19/9/2013 before the initial suit was filed and they were aware there was judgment against the driver of the said motor vehicle for the death of Justus Wambua Nzioka.
5) That the honourable magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to appreciate the defendants admission in court that all the buses belonging to Akamba Public Road Services Ltd were insured under one general Motor Public Number the one allocated by them to motor vehicle registration KBE 297V was ZAA810/000405/000/02 and it was wrong to hold that the plaintiffs claim was not payable, under cap 405,
Laws of Kenya.
6) That the honourable magistrate erred in law and fact in shifting the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff as to the fine details of how they allocated sub-policy members in a motor pool policy when the police had already provided the main policy number to the plaintiff and it was correct.
Reasons wherefore the appellants prays for the following orders;
a) That the judgment of the honourable magistrate J.D Karani delivered on 2/2/2022 in Makindu PMCC 201 of 2019 be and is hereby set aside.
b) That judgment in Makindu PMCC 201 of 2019 he and is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant herein as prayed in the plaint thereof. c) That the costs of this appeal and the lower court be to the appellant/plaintiff.
12. Appellant  filed submissions
13. On whether  or  not  Bonface   Kioko   was the insured   of the defendant  as  per  Cap  405  Law  of  Kenya  -  it  is submitted  that  the  police  abstract  produced   as  evidence   shows  that  he  was the driver  of  the  said  motor vehicle   -  and that  the defendant did not produce evidence  to show  that  he  was  not  the driver  of  the  motor vehicle;  that   no  appeal  was  filed  against  the judgment    of the  subordinate  court.
14. It is also submitted that the motor vehicle    Reg.  No. KBE  297 was insured   by the respondent at the  material  time – that   it  belonged  to  Akamba    Public   Road   Services  Ltd – who  was the insured  of the  respondent.  That  the  trial  court   was  in  error  in failing  to  appreciate  that  Bonface    Kioko  was  sued  as  the driver  of the Akamba  Public  Road  Services  Ltd -  and  that  the  company  absorbed   his  liability.
15. The  appellant   cited  Section  10(1)  (2)  of  the  Insurance  Act  Cap  405,  Laws  of  Kenya,   Kayanja vs  New India  Assurance    Company  Ltd (1968)  EA 295 with  respect  to  the liability   of the Insurer  regarding  the  insured   authorized   driver.
16. It  is  further     submitted  that  what  was insured  was  the use  of the motor  vehicle  and that  it  is   not in  doubt  that  the bus  KBE  297V was  insured   by  the respondent.  That the appellant  had  made  on oral  amendment of  the  pleadings  to  include  the proper  policy  no.  ZAA810/00465/000/02.
17. It  was   further  submitted   that  the  plaintiff   could not have  known   who was in  the  insurance   policy  which  was in the  custody  of the insurer -  the appellant  relied  on Siaya  HCCA 7/2020 Kenya  Alliance  Insurance   Co. Ltd  vs  Thomas   Ochieng   Apopa  suing  as  the Administrators  of the Estate  of  Pamela  Agola  Apopa.
18. For the    respondent it  was submitted    the  following issues  were  set  out  for determination
a) Whether the defendant in the primary suit Makindu SRMCC No. 325 of 2013 one Boniface Kioko was the respondent’s insured?
b) What is effect of section 10(1) of Cap 405 (Insurance Motor Vehicle (Third Party Risks) Act Laws of Kenya?
c) Whether the respondent was liable to pay the decretal sum as alleged in the declaratory suit Makindu CMCC No. 201 of 2019.
d) Who should bear the costs of the appeal.
19. It  is  submitted  that  the defendant    in PMCC 325 /2013   was not  the insured   of  the defendant –
20. It is   further   submitted  that  the appellant  failed to  establish  the mandatory  pre-condition  for  an insurer    to be   liable – the existence  of  a  judgment   obtained    against    any person  insured   by   the policy.  For  the  respondent   it  is  cited – Philip  Kimani  Gikonyo  vs  Gateway Insurance  Company  Ltd   [2007]  eKLR  on the  rights   under  the policy  of the permitted    driver,    that  an insured  person  must  demonstrate  to the court  that  he had  an existing   contract  of insurance  with  an insurance    company   in order  to  receive  compensation  from the insurance   company.  This was    the holding   in AIG Insurance    Co.  Ltd   vs  Benard  Kiprotich  Kirui[2022] eKLR; 
21. It  is  further  submitted      that  there  must  be an insurable   interest  “the  pecuniary/ property   interest  that  the insured    stands  to lose  if  the  risk  attaches “– see  Lucena  vs  Crawford  (1806)  2 BOS PNR  269at  302;  that  the appellant  failed to  establish  as  between  the defendant  in the  primary   suit   and the respondent   in this  appeal a  direct  relationship,  arising  out of  a  legal/equitable    right   or  interest,   related  to  the  insurance.
22.    That  during    the  trial  the appellant’s position   was that  the said  Bonface  Kioko  was the registered    owner  of the motor vehicle, but at  the declaratory  suit,  changed  the  narrative  to say  that  he was the  driver – that  the appellant  sued  the  wrong party  and obtained  judgment against     the  wrong   party  a  stranger   to the  respondent. 
23. I have  from the  foregoing   only  one  issue    to determine  - whether   the appellant  established  that  the  respondent  was liable    to pay/settle  the decretal  sum in  MAKINDU PMCC325/2013 . 
24. The  appellant  sued    Bonface  Kioko  as  the defendant .    In that  suit the  appellant told    the court  that the defendant  was  the registered   owner of the motor  vehicle  registration  no.  KBE279V   and that  it  was driven  by his  driver/agent -  the  plaintiff   also  gave  a  policy  number. 
25. The judgment   was  entered   against  the  said  Bonface  Kioko -  nowhere  in     that  suit  was the  Akamba    Public   Road   Service Ltd indicted as  a  defendant. No judgment was entered    against    the said Akamba Public Road Services Ltd.  If the respondent insured   the said  bus    through     Akamba  Public  Road  Services  Ltd,  it  was clear  that     Bonface  Kioko   was not  the insured  of  the respondent.
26. How  then  could    the trial   court find that  the respondent  was liable    - when   their   insured  was not  a party-  and  was  removed  from the  suit  by  the appellant?
27. The respondent’s  insured   did not participate in the primary suit, and no judgment    was   entered   against   it. 
28. It  is  evident  from the  primary  suit, and the appellant  sued   Bonface  Kioko  - not  Akamba  Public  Road  Service  Ltd,  It is evident   that there was no evidence that Bonface    Kioko   was the driver/employee/authorized driver of the respondent, insured, hence , the submission  that  the respondent is liable   because   Bonface   Kioko   was the  authorized  driver   of   respondent  - is  not  tenable.
29. What  emerges  from   this  appeal  ,  and  from the suit   appealed   form is  that    the  appellant  is  prosecuting  the primary  suit through these  suits. The  declaratory  suit  was   not  the place  to  bring  new  evidence -  neither  is  the appeal  the  place  to  bring  new  evidence  -  evidence  that  ought  to  have  been  placed  before     the  trial  court. 
30. The  long  and short  of  it  all  is  that  the appellant  sued  Bonface   Kioko    and judgment   was entered   against  Bonface   Kioko  - the respondent's    insured  was  not sued -   and no  judgment   was made  against    the  respondent's  insured. 
31. There  is  no reason  to  upset  the  judgment  of the trial court  and  the same  is  upheld . 
32. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Dated signed and delivered via CTS on 20/8/2024.

Mumbua T. Matheka

Judge