Nairobi transport company City Star Shuttle.


Nairobi transport company City Star Shuttle wants troubled insurance firm Xplico and industry regulator to deposit Sh10 million, pending the determination of a dispute in court.

The bus company which provides transport to city residents wants Xplico Insurance company limited and the Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA) to deposit the money, pending the resolution of a dispute between the company and Damaris Onduso.

The bus company further wants the High Court to suspend the execution of decree issued by a Milimani court.

The decree was issued by a Milimani chief magistrate on 18th of August 2021.

The company wants the underwriter and the regulator compelled to settle the decretal sum of Sh1.9 million plus costs, arising from the dispute.

The bus company argues that it entered into a contract with the underwriter in April 2018 for motor vehicle registration number KCC 939E.

Through lawyer Mburu Mwangi, the firm says the bus was involved in an accident on or about the 2 May 2018, and a passenger, Damaris Onduso, was injured.

The passenger later sued the transport firm seeking payment.

The lawyer says Xplico was notified of the accident and the underwriter was informed that the company complied with all policy conditions to enable settlement of the claim.

Xplico then instructed its advocates (M.J Okumu & Associates Advocates) to defend the case.

The records in the suit indicate that there was a consent on liability and judgement was entered accordingly in favour of the Plaintiff for the sum of Sh1,506,073 together with costs and interest.

However, despite the foregoing, more particularly, Xplico Insurance recording a consent, the insurance has failed, declined to settle the claim.

“Consequently, the Plaintiff’s property has been executed by way of attachment of its motor vehicles which in this case are its tools of trade as it engages in public service transport in Nairobi and its environs,” the lawyer says.

He says even upon being notified of the execution against the Plaintiff’s property, the insurer has blatantly refused to settle the amount.

The lawyer added that ignoring the demand can be perceived as acts of malice, arrogance and acts of impunity.

The company adds that the regulator has failed in its capacity and statutory mandate, to offer proper oversight over the underwriter in ensuring compliance or reprimanding the the insurance company.

It adds that the regulator has further failed to cushion the company against imminent loss of its property by settling the decretal sum from the Policy Holder’s Compensation Fund.

“Given the nature of the foregoing facts, this matter is imminently a perfect candidate for summary judgement as the question of settlement of decretal sum,” the lawyer said.