Cannon Assurance Company Ltd v Dorah Aoko Wanyama [2016] KEHC 1892 (KLR)

Facts

The respondent was involved in a road traffic accident on 26.11.2008. The appellant was the insurer of the lorry involved in the accident. The respondent filed a civil suit against the appellant, which was settled by consent. The respondent then filed a separate civil suit, which the trial court found in favor of the respondent.

Issues

1. The appellant's submission that it had not issued a policy of insurance No. 02/08/196007/08 to Twin Transport in respect of motor vehicle KBB 646K.
2. The appellant's submission that the respondent had departed from her pleadings in the primary suit.
3. The appellant's submission that the respondent's vehicle was KBB 646K and not KBB 647K.
4. The appellant's submission that the trial court erred in law and in fact by finding the appellant liable to settle the decree of the judgment from the primary suit.
5. The appellant's submission that the trial court erred in law and in fact by finding the appellant did not issue the insurance policy.
6. The appellant's submission that the trial court erred in law and in fact by finding the appellant did not issue the insurance policy.
7. The appellant's submission that the trial court erred in law and in fact by finding the appellant did not issue the insurance policy.

Reasoning

The court found that the appellant's submission that it had not issued a policy of insurance No. 02/08/196007/08 to Twin Transport in respect of motor vehicle KBB 646K was not supported by evidence. The court also found that the appellant's submission that the respondent had departed from her pleadings in the primary suit was not supported by evidence. The court found that the appellant's submission that the respondent's vehicle was KBB 646K and not KBB 647K was not supported by evidence. The court found that the appellant's submission that the trial court erred in law and in fact by finding the appellant liable to settle the decree of the judgment from the primary suit was not supported by evidence. The court found that the appellant's submission that the trial court erred in law and in fact by finding the appellant did not issue the insurance policy was not supported by evidence. The court found that the appellant's submission that the trial court erred in law and in fact by finding the appellant did not issue the insurance policy was not supported by evidence. The court found that the appellant's submission that the trial court erred in law and in fact by finding the appellant did not issue the insurance policy was not supported by evidence.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Authorities cited