SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Cannon Assurance (Kenya) Limited v Kandhari Brothers Limited [2016] KEHC 1656 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 1656 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1656
Citation
[2016] KEHC 1656 (KLR)
Decided
18 August 2016
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil SuitPostureAppeal from the original trial outcomeCoramG. L. NZIOKA
Holding

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has proved its claim and enters judgment in favor of the Plaintiff for Kshs. 4,194,392, interest, and costs.

Facts

The Plaintiff, Cannon Assurance (Kenya) Limited, sued the Defendant, Kandhari Brothers Limited, for outstanding insurance premia of Kshs. 4,194,392 as of August 31, 2000. The Plaintiff claimed interest, costs, and other relief. The Defendant denied the claim and argued that the Plaintiff's claims were time-barred under the Limitations of Action Act.

Issues

  1. Did the Plaintiff issue policies in favor of the Defendant?
  2. Is the Defendant obliged to pay the sums debited by the Plaintiff?
  3. Are the Plaintiff's claims for certain Debit Notes time-barred?
  4. What amount (if any) is due and owing by the Defendant to the Plaintiff?
  5. Is the Plaintiff entitled to interest at Bank rates?

Reasoning

The Court found that the Plaintiff's claims were not time-barred and that the Plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to support its claim.

Outcome

Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff

Orders

  • A sum of Kshs 4,194,392.00
  • Costs on the Suit
  • Interest on (a) and (b) above at Court rates from the time of filing the suit to payments in full

Remedies

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Limitations of Action Act
  • Insurance Act
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case