Insurance Appeals Tribunal Chairman Wambua Kilonzo.


Britam insurance has been ordered to pay a motorist Sh7 million for compensation of his motor vehicle after he was involved in an accident on Thika Road three years ago.

The Insurance Appeals Tribunal ordered the underwriter to pay George Otieno Odinga Sh7 million after ruling that the insurer failed to prove claims of fraud as claimed.

The Tribunal led by its chairman Wambua Kilonzo and members Martin Mithega and Charles Kipkulei overturned a decision by the Insurance Regulatory Authority dated January 22, 2022 and ordered Britam to pay the motorist.

“The Tribunal hereby revokes the decision of Insurance Regulatory Authority dated January 28 ,2022 and the appeal is allowed and the Tribunal orders that Britam Insurance forthwith settles Odinga’s claim in line with the discharge voucher dated October 29, 2018″, ordered Kilonzo led Tribunal.

However, the Tribunal did not award any damages to Odinga saying he failed to prove that his rights to privacy were breached.

Odinga had challenged a decision by the IRA rejecting his claim on grounds that his vehicle was covered by the terms and conditions of his policy which was fully paid.

He argued that the IRA never gave him a chance to avail his evidence to enable it to make a just and fair conclusion.

“I was not given an opportunity to avail my evidence to enable the Insurance Regulatory Authority to make a just and fair decision”, said Odinga.

According to him, the IRA never considered expert evidence that was captured in the reports prepared by paramount Assessors ltd and Toyota Kenya.

IRA argued that Britam declined settlement on the ground of inconsistencies in the evidence tendered by Odinga about the circumstances of the accident and the damage caused to the motor vehicle.

Britam argued that investigations revealed several inconsistent facts reported by Odinga and his driver which amounts to breach of terms and conditions in the policy lending to Britam to decline the claim.

“The interested party (Britam) having failed to prove on the part of the appellant and or any other vitiating factor, this contract remains valid and enforceable,” the tribunal ruled.