1. The Plaintiff herein an insurance company had insured the Defendant’s motor vehicle registration No. KAX 474T vide an insurance policy No. P/MSAa/2018/102/106878 pursuant to a proposal filled by the Defendant and at the latter’s request against risk arising from the use of the said motor vehicle for commercial purposes. The policy was valid for the period running from 27th July 2021 to 26th July 2022.
2. It was a term of the said insurance policy that the Plaintiff was to indemnify the Defendant in the event of loss, damage or claims arising from road traffic accident caused or arising from the such commercial use of the motor vehicle registration No. KAX 474T.
3. On 23rd June 2022 the said motor vehicle registration No. KAX 474T was involved in a road traffic accident at Luanda along Kisumu Busia Road whereat one Selpha Ombisi Amendia, a female pedestrian sustained bodily injuries.
4. The said Selpha Ombisi Amendia subsequently filed a case based on tortious negligence against one Amstrong Okiya t/a Fredoca Solutions in Kisumu CMCC No. 260 of 2022 and issued the Plaintiff with notice of her intention to sue pursuant to the provision of Section 10(2) of Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risk Act) CAP 405 Laws of Kenya.
5. Subsequent to the receipt of the said notice, the Plaintiff approached this court and craved for the following orders:-
a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is not bound to pay/or satisfy any judgment in Kisumu Chief Magistrate’s Court being Kisumu CMCC No. 260 of 2022: Selpha Ombisi Amendia -vs- Amstrong Okiya T/A: Fredoca Solutions and/or any suit arising from the said accident and/or indemnify the Defendants against any claim in respect of bodily injury or death to any person, damage to property or satisfy any claim whatsoever arising out of the accident which allegedly occurred on 23rd June 2022 along Kisumu-Busia Road at Texas area involving motor vehicle registration No. KAX 474T.
b) Costs of this suit.
c) Interest on (b) above at court rates.
d) Any other or further relief that this curt may deem just, expedient and fit to grant.
6. Whereas the Defendant was duly served with summons to enter appearance and the plaint, it ought not to ente r through substituted service by way of advertisement in the Standard Newspapers on 8.12.2023.
7. Vide a notice of motion dated 7.9.2023 the Plaintiff craved for orders of stay of proceedings in Kisumu CMCC No. 260 of 2022: Selpha Ombisi Amendia -vs- Amstrong Okiya T/A Fredoca Solutions, pending the hearing and determination of this suit. This court allowed the Plaintiff’s said application on 19.12.2023 and thus orders of stay of proceedings of Kisumu CMCC No. 260 of 2022: Selpha Ombisi Amendia -vs- Amstrong Okiya T/A Fredoca Solutions were accordingly granted.
B. Evidence
8. On 13.3.2024 this case proceeded for hearing and one Dolphine Moindi, the legal officer of the Plaintiff adopted her witness statement dated 7.9.2023 as her evidence in chief and testified as below.
8. Vide a proposal form duly filed by the Defendant, he had requested the Plaintiff to issue him with an insurance policy cover for its motor vehicle registration No. KAX 474T. The Defendant represented to the Plaintiff that the vehicle was for commercial user.
9. Pursuant to the said proposal, representation and requisite payment by the Defendant, the Plaintiff issued the Defendant with a motor vehicle insurance policy number P/MSA/2018/102/106878.
10. Per the terms of the said insurance policy, the Plaintiff was to indemnify the Defendant in the event of loss/damage/claims arising from a road traffic accident caused or arising from the use of the motor vehicle registration No. KAX 474T for commercial purpose.
11. The Plaintiff’s witness testified that the Plaintiff received a notice of institution of a suit against Hermstrong Okiya Mukoya following the involvement of motor vehicle KAX 474T in a road traffic accident on 23.6.2023 along Kisumu Busia road at Texas area.
12. It was the evidence of this witness that upon conducting investigation the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant had sold the subject motor vehicle to Hermstrong Okiya Mukoya T/A Fredoca Solutions 6 months prior to the said accident but had contrary to the insurance policy failed to disclose this position to the Plaintiff to enable the latter cancel the insurance policy.
13. The Plaintiff’s witness maintained that there was no contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and Hermstrong Okiya Mukoya T/A Fredoca Solutions and that no insurance policy existed between the Plaintiff and Hermstrong Okiya Mukoya T/A Fredoca Solutions wherefore there was neither a legal or contractual obligation on the part of the Plaintiff to compensate any third parties injured as a result of the said accident involving motor vehicle registration No. KAY 474T, as one Hermstrong Okiya Mukoya was a stranger to the Plaintiff.
14. The Plaintiff’s witness maintained that there exists no legal nor contractual liability on the part of the Plaintiff to indemnify the Defendant or the injured persons as per the scope of the insurance policy.
15. This witness was categorical that the Defendant had breached the contract between it and the Plaintiff fzzwherefore the Defendant should bear liability for any claims of injured persons, arising from the said accident.
16. PW1 told this court that insurable interest is not transferable to 3rd party or stranger.
C. Submissions:
17. The Plaintiff filed submissions wherein it reiterated its position as stated hereinabove and invited this court to be guided by the case of Fredrick Kariuki Munene & Anor -vs- Joseph Musyoka Nzavu (2022) eKLR, where Justice Limo rendered himself as follows:-
“Finally, it is a matter of law that an insurance policy is not transferrable to a purchaser even if a motor vehicle is sold when the cover is in existence, whether 3rd p0arty or comprehensive is still valid.”
D. Analysis and Determination:
18. Whereas this suit is undefended, it is still incumbent upon the Plaintiff to prove its case on a balance of probability.
19. I have analyzed the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff vide the testimony of its legal officer and its documents produced as exhibits 1 – 10 in the sequence that they appear in the Plaintiff’s list of documents dated 7.9.2023 and the issues that emerge for determination are as follows:-
a) Was the defendant in breach the policy of insurance at the time of the accident.
b) Did the defendant have an insurable interest as at the time of the accident?
c) Subject to the answers in (a) and (b) above is the Plaintiff entitled to repudiate the insurance policy No. P/MSA/2018/102/106878.
d) Who should bear the costs of this suit.
20. According to the evidence of the Plaintiff’s witness one Dolphine Moindi, the insurance policy obligated the Plaintiff to indemnify the Defendant in the event of loss, damages and or claims arising from road traffic accident caused by or arising from the use of the defendant’s said motor vehicle within the contractual user as indicated in the proposal forms which was indicated as commercial user.
21. I will now address the issue of whether Defendant breached the insurance policy. The police abstract contained in the Plaintiff’s list of documents in Kisumu CMCC No. 266 of 2022: Selpha Ombisi Amendia -vs- Armstrong Okiya Mukoya T/A Fredoca indicates that at the material time; 23/6/2022 the subject motor vehicle was owned by one Armstrong Okiya T/A Fredoca Solutions of P. O. Box 566 Luanda.
23. An investigation report prepared by M/s. Counterstrike Ltd revealed that the Defendant had sold the insured motor vehicle to Fridoca Solutions and Construction Company on 21st December 2021; a period of six months prior to the date of accident.
24. A self-drawn statement of Hermstrong O. Mukoya attached to the said investigation report discloses that he purchased the subject motor vehicle for personal and private user and that on the material day one Bonny Enock Okiya had borrowed it for purposes of taking the latter’s children to school and he thereafter ran over a pedestrian while driving from school to his residence. Bonny Enock Okiya also recorded a statement and stated that indeed on the material day he had borrowed the subject motor vehicle from his cousin Hermstrong Okiya Mukoya to take his child to school and after dropping them he ran over a female pedestrian.
25. A sale agreement attached to the same report clearly indicates that the purchaser Mr Hermstrong O Mukoya T/A Fridoca Solutions and Construction Company was to continue using the insurance policy until the ownership was transferred in the logbook.
26. It is trite law that utmost good faith is the cornerstone of an insurance contract. The fact of sale and hence change of ownership of the subject motor vehicle was never disclosed to the plaintiff by the defendant and the latter never surrendered the policy document to the plaintiff for cancellation of the policy of insurance. The defendant was in total breach of the doctrine of uberrimae fidei. An immediate disclosure off the fact of sale of the subject motor vehicle would probably have led to an immediate recall of the policy documents and termination of the insurance contract between the parties.
27. The insurance policy produced as Plaintiff’s exhibit No 1 had a special clause No1 which was a limitation as to use. The subject vehicle’s user changed from commercial to private and personal upon sale of the vehicle as per the statement of Hermstrong O Mukoya. Even if the defendant would still have had an insurable interest at the material times, which it did not, the use of the vehicle for private and personal purposes was not covered by the policy of insurance.
28. I Premised upon the analysis made herein above I do find that the defendant breached the clear terms of the policy of insurance by failing to disclose to the plaintiff that it had parted with ownership of the subject motor vehicle and further it had in disposing the motor vehicle effected a change of it’s user yet the terms and conditions of the insurance policy restricted its used to commercial only.
29. A policy of insurance insures an insurable interest of the insured. In this instance ownership of the motor vehicle had already passed to Hermstrong Okiya Mukoya T/A Fredoca Solutions on 21st December 2021 while the accident occurred on 23rd June 2023. The Defendant’s insurable interest ceased to exist upon the sale of the motor vehicle to Fredoca Solutions . Given that insurance policy is personal and not transferrable to a third party, the insurance policy that was then subsisting as between the Plaintiff and the Defendant lapsed on the date of the said sale. It is therefore immaterial that the Defendant then presenting itself as Beta World Holding Limited purported to transfer the insurance policy to Ms. Fredoca Solutions.
30. An insured can only receive compensation or be indemnified by an insurance company upon proving to the court the existence of an insurance contract (insurance policy) and that he/she has an insurable interest. In this instance whereas a policy of insurance was in force at the material time relevant to this suit, the Defendant had no insurable interest and that latter state of affairs defeats any claim for compensation or indemnity for loss, damage or claims arising upon maturity of the insured risk.
31. Insurable interest is essentially the pecuniary or proprietary interest that the insured stands to lose if the risk matures (see the judgment of Lawrence J in Lucena -vs- Crawford (1806) 2 BOS PNR 269 eit 302.
32. Insurable interest was defined in the case of Anctol -vs- Matufachine Life Insurance Company (1899) A. C 604 as follows:-
“That basic requirement of an insurance contract unless waived, that it generally means that the party to the insurance contract who is the insured or policy holder must have particular relationship with the subject matter with the insurance whether that be a life or property or a liability to which he might be exposed. Every insurance requires an insurable interest to support it, otherwise it is invalid.”
33. Justice R. Lagat Korir who had occasion to consider a similar issue in the case of AIG Insurance Ltd -vs- Benard Kiprotich Kirui (2022) eKLR rendered himself as below:-
“Courts have outlined the following as determinants of an insurable interest:-
a) A direct relationship between the insured and the subject matter.
b) The relationship must have arisen out of a legal or equitable right or interest in the subject matter.
c) The interest bears any loss or liability arising in the event the loss or risk attaches.
d) The insured’s right or interest in the subject matter must be capable of pecuniary estimation or quantification.
34. Given that an insurance policy is one of indemnity the defendant herein cannot be indemnify as he has no insurable interest and any loss suffered by third parties due to the use of the subject motor vehicle does not attach to it and by law and extension to it’s insurer.
35. It is instructive to note that the plaintiff herein had duly issued the third party, Selpha Ombisi Amendia with notice of filing of this suit dated 7th September 2023 pursuant the provisions of section 5 and 13 of the insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Part Risks) Act Cap 405 Laws of Kenya. The third party has not bothered to defend this suit, save that during the hearing of this case on 13Th March 2024 one Miss Aroni attended court virtually and unsuccessfully applied for an adjournment.
E. Conclusion
36. On the balance I do find that the plaintiff has proved it’s case on a balance of probability and therefore is entitled to repudiate the policy of insurance No P/MSA/2018/102/106878 on grounds of breach of the terms and conditions thereof by the defendant. I therefore make the following orders:
a) A declaration is hereby made that the plaintiff herein is not bound to pay or satisfy any judgement in Kisumu chief Magistrate’s Court CMCC NO 260 of 2022: Selpha Ombisi Amendia Vs Amstrong (Hermstrong) Okiya Mukoya T/A Fredoca(Fridoca) Solutions, and/or any other suit arising from a road traffic accident which allegedly occurred on 23rd June 2023 along Kisumu-Busia road at Texas area involving motor vehicle registration No KAX474T or to indemnify the defendant against any claim in respect of bodily injury or death to any person, damage to property or to satisfy any claim whatsoever arising out of the said accident.
b) The plaintiff is awarded costs of this suit plus interest at court rates.
Delivered, signed and dated at Kisumu this 30th day of September 2024.
2. It was a term of the said insurance policy that the Plaintiff was to indemnify the Defendant in the event of loss, damage or claims arising from road traffic accident caused or arising from the such commercial use of the motor vehicle registration No. KAX 474T.
3. On 23rd June 2022 the said motor vehicle registration No. KAX 474T was involved in a road traffic accident at Luanda along Kisumu Busia Road whereat one Selpha Ombisi Amendia, a female pedestrian sustained bodily injuries.
4. The said Selpha Ombisi Amendia subsequently filed a case based on tortious negligence against one Amstrong Okiya t/a Fredoca Solutions in Kisumu CMCC No. 260 of 2022 and issued the Plaintiff with notice of her intention to sue pursuant to the provision of Section 10(2) of Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risk Act) CAP 405 Laws of Kenya.
5. Subsequent to the receipt of the said notice, the Plaintiff approached this court and craved for the following orders:-
a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is not bound to pay/or satisfy any judgment in Kisumu Chief Magistrate’s Court being Kisumu CMCC No. 260 of 2022: Selpha Ombisi Amendia -vs- Amstrong Okiya T/A: Fredoca Solutions and/or any suit arising from the said accident and/or indemnify the Defendants against any claim in respect of bodily injury or death to any person, damage to property or satisfy any claim whatsoever arising out of the accident which allegedly occurred on 23rd June 2022 along Kisumu-Busia Road at Texas area involving motor vehicle registration No. KAX 474T.
b) Costs of this suit.
c) Interest on (b) above at court rates.
d) Any other or further relief that this curt may deem just, expedient and fit to grant.
6. Whereas the Defendant was duly served with summons to enter appearance and the plaint, it ought not to ente r through substituted service by way of advertisement in the Standard Newspapers on 8.12.2023.
7. Vide a notice of motion dated 7.9.2023 the Plaintiff craved for orders of stay of proceedings in Kisumu CMCC No. 260 of 2022: Selpha Ombisi Amendia -vs- Amstrong Okiya T/A Fredoca Solutions, pending the hearing and determination of this suit. This court allowed the Plaintiff’s said application on 19.12.2023 and thus orders of stay of proceedings of Kisumu CMCC No. 260 of 2022: Selpha Ombisi Amendia -vs- Amstrong Okiya T/A Fredoca Solutions were accordingly granted.
B. Evidence
8. On 13.3.2024 this case proceeded for hearing and one Dolphine Moindi, the legal officer of the Plaintiff adopted her witness statement dated 7.9.2023 as her evidence in chief and testified as below.
8. Vide a proposal form duly filed by the Defendant, he had requested the Plaintiff to issue him with an insurance policy cover for its motor vehicle registration No. KAX 474T. The Defendant represented to the Plaintiff that the vehicle was for commercial user.
9. Pursuant to the said proposal, representation and requisite payment by the Defendant, the Plaintiff issued the Defendant with a motor vehicle insurance policy number P/MSA/2018/102/106878.
10. Per the terms of the said insurance policy, the Plaintiff was to indemnify the Defendant in the event of loss/damage/claims arising from a road traffic accident caused or arising from the use of the motor vehicle registration No. KAX 474T for commercial purpose.
11. The Plaintiff’s witness testified that the Plaintiff received a notice of institution of a suit against Hermstrong Okiya Mukoya following the involvement of motor vehicle KAX 474T in a road traffic accident on 23.6.2023 along Kisumu Busia road at Texas area.
12. It was the evidence of this witness that upon conducting investigation the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant had sold the subject motor vehicle to Hermstrong Okiya Mukoya T/A Fredoca Solutions 6 months prior to the said accident but had contrary to the insurance policy failed to disclose this position to the Plaintiff to enable the latter cancel the insurance policy.
13. The Plaintiff’s witness maintained that there was no contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and Hermstrong Okiya Mukoya T/A Fredoca Solutions and that no insurance policy existed between the Plaintiff and Hermstrong Okiya Mukoya T/A Fredoca Solutions wherefore there was neither a legal or contractual obligation on the part of the Plaintiff to compensate any third parties injured as a result of the said accident involving motor vehicle registration No. KAY 474T, as one Hermstrong Okiya Mukoya was a stranger to the Plaintiff.
14. The Plaintiff’s witness maintained that there exists no legal nor contractual liability on the part of the Plaintiff to indemnify the Defendant or the injured persons as per the scope of the insurance policy.
15. This witness was categorical that the Defendant had breached the contract between it and the Plaintiff fzzwherefore the Defendant should bear liability for any claims of injured persons, arising from the said accident.
16. PW1 told this court that insurable interest is not transferable to 3rd party or stranger.
C. Submissions:
17. The Plaintiff filed submissions wherein it reiterated its position as stated hereinabove and invited this court to be guided by the case of Fredrick Kariuki Munene & Anor -vs- Joseph Musyoka Nzavu (2022) eKLR, where Justice Limo rendered himself as follows:-
“Finally, it is a matter of law that an insurance policy is not transferrable to a purchaser even if a motor vehicle is sold when the cover is in existence, whether 3rd p0arty or comprehensive is still valid.”
D. Analysis and Determination:
18. Whereas this suit is undefended, it is still incumbent upon the Plaintiff to prove its case on a balance of probability.
19. I have analyzed the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff vide the testimony of its legal officer and its documents produced as exhibits 1 – 10 in the sequence that they appear in the Plaintiff’s list of documents dated 7.9.2023 and the issues that emerge for determination are as follows:-
a) Was the defendant in breach the policy of insurance at the time of the accident.
b) Did the defendant have an insurable interest as at the time of the accident?
c) Subject to the answers in (a) and (b) above is the Plaintiff entitled to repudiate the insurance policy No. P/MSA/2018/102/106878.
d) Who should bear the costs of this suit.
20. According to the evidence of the Plaintiff’s witness one Dolphine Moindi, the insurance policy obligated the Plaintiff to indemnify the Defendant in the event of loss, damages and or claims arising from road traffic accident caused by or arising from the use of the defendant’s said motor vehicle within the contractual user as indicated in the proposal forms which was indicated as commercial user.
21. I will now address the issue of whether Defendant breached the insurance policy. The police abstract contained in the Plaintiff’s list of documents in Kisumu CMCC No. 266 of 2022: Selpha Ombisi Amendia -vs- Armstrong Okiya Mukoya T/A Fredoca indicates that at the material time; 23/6/2022 the subject motor vehicle was owned by one Armstrong Okiya T/A Fredoca Solutions of P. O. Box 566 Luanda.
23. An investigation report prepared by M/s. Counterstrike Ltd revealed that the Defendant had sold the insured motor vehicle to Fridoca Solutions and Construction Company on 21st December 2021; a period of six months prior to the date of accident.
24. A self-drawn statement of Hermstrong O. Mukoya attached to the said investigation report discloses that he purchased the subject motor vehicle for personal and private user and that on the material day one Bonny Enock Okiya had borrowed it for purposes of taking the latter’s children to school and he thereafter ran over a pedestrian while driving from school to his residence. Bonny Enock Okiya also recorded a statement and stated that indeed on the material day he had borrowed the subject motor vehicle from his cousin Hermstrong Okiya Mukoya to take his child to school and after dropping them he ran over a female pedestrian.
25. A sale agreement attached to the same report clearly indicates that the purchaser Mr Hermstrong O Mukoya T/A Fridoca Solutions and Construction Company was to continue using the insurance policy until the ownership was transferred in the logbook.
26. It is trite law that utmost good faith is the cornerstone of an insurance contract. The fact of sale and hence change of ownership of the subject motor vehicle was never disclosed to the plaintiff by the defendant and the latter never surrendered the policy document to the plaintiff for cancellation of the policy of insurance. The defendant was in total breach of the doctrine of uberrimae fidei. An immediate disclosure off the fact of sale of the subject motor vehicle would probably have led to an immediate recall of the policy documents and termination of the insurance contract between the parties.
27. The insurance policy produced as Plaintiff’s exhibit No 1 had a special clause No1 which was a limitation as to use. The subject vehicle’s user changed from commercial to private and personal upon sale of the vehicle as per the statement of Hermstrong O Mukoya. Even if the defendant would still have had an insurable interest at the material times, which it did not, the use of the vehicle for private and personal purposes was not covered by the policy of insurance.
28. I Premised upon the analysis made herein above I do find that the defendant breached the clear terms of the policy of insurance by failing to disclose to the plaintiff that it had parted with ownership of the subject motor vehicle and further it had in disposing the motor vehicle effected a change of it’s user yet the terms and conditions of the insurance policy restricted its used to commercial only.
29. A policy of insurance insures an insurable interest of the insured. In this instance ownership of the motor vehicle had already passed to Hermstrong Okiya Mukoya T/A Fredoca Solutions on 21st December 2021 while the accident occurred on 23rd June 2023. The Defendant’s insurable interest ceased to exist upon the sale of the motor vehicle to Fredoca Solutions . Given that insurance policy is personal and not transferrable to a third party, the insurance policy that was then subsisting as between the Plaintiff and the Defendant lapsed on the date of the said sale. It is therefore immaterial that the Defendant then presenting itself as Beta World Holding Limited purported to transfer the insurance policy to Ms. Fredoca Solutions.
30. An insured can only receive compensation or be indemnified by an insurance company upon proving to the court the existence of an insurance contract (insurance policy) and that he/she has an insurable interest. In this instance whereas a policy of insurance was in force at the material time relevant to this suit, the Defendant had no insurable interest and that latter state of affairs defeats any claim for compensation or indemnity for loss, damage or claims arising upon maturity of the insured risk.
31. Insurable interest is essentially the pecuniary or proprietary interest that the insured stands to lose if the risk matures (see the judgment of Lawrence J in Lucena -vs- Crawford (1806) 2 BOS PNR 269 eit 302.
32. Insurable interest was defined in the case of Anctol -vs- Matufachine Life Insurance Company (1899) A. C 604 as follows:-
“That basic requirement of an insurance contract unless waived, that it generally means that the party to the insurance contract who is the insured or policy holder must have particular relationship with the subject matter with the insurance whether that be a life or property or a liability to which he might be exposed. Every insurance requires an insurable interest to support it, otherwise it is invalid.”
33. Justice R. Lagat Korir who had occasion to consider a similar issue in the case of AIG Insurance Ltd -vs- Benard Kiprotich Kirui (2022) eKLR rendered himself as below:-
“Courts have outlined the following as determinants of an insurable interest:-
a) A direct relationship between the insured and the subject matter.
b) The relationship must have arisen out of a legal or equitable right or interest in the subject matter.
c) The interest bears any loss or liability arising in the event the loss or risk attaches.
d) The insured’s right or interest in the subject matter must be capable of pecuniary estimation or quantification.
34. Given that an insurance policy is one of indemnity the defendant herein cannot be indemnify as he has no insurable interest and any loss suffered by third parties due to the use of the subject motor vehicle does not attach to it and by law and extension to it’s insurer.
35. It is instructive to note that the plaintiff herein had duly issued the third party, Selpha Ombisi Amendia with notice of filing of this suit dated 7th September 2023 pursuant the provisions of section 5 and 13 of the insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Part Risks) Act Cap 405 Laws of Kenya. The third party has not bothered to defend this suit, save that during the hearing of this case on 13Th March 2024 one Miss Aroni attended court virtually and unsuccessfully applied for an adjournment.
E. Conclusion
36. On the balance I do find that the plaintiff has proved it’s case on a balance of probability and therefore is entitled to repudiate the policy of insurance No P/MSA/2018/102/106878 on grounds of breach of the terms and conditions thereof by the defendant. I therefore make the following orders:
a) A declaration is hereby made that the plaintiff herein is not bound to pay or satisfy any judgement in Kisumu chief Magistrate’s Court CMCC NO 260 of 2022: Selpha Ombisi Amendia Vs Amstrong (Hermstrong) Okiya Mukoya T/A Fredoca(Fridoca) Solutions, and/or any other suit arising from a road traffic accident which allegedly occurred on 23rd June 2023 along Kisumu-Busia road at Texas area involving motor vehicle registration No KAX474T or to indemnify the defendant against any claim in respect of bodily injury or death to any person, damage to property or to satisfy any claim whatsoever arising out of the said accident.
b) The plaintiff is awarded costs of this suit plus interest at court rates.
Delivered, signed and dated at Kisumu this 30th day of September 2024.