Rex v Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 1950 (Case Stated))
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Court held that although the insurance policy contained a proviso excluding coverage when the driver lacked a Certificate of Competency or driving licence, section 8 of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, 1945 rendered such conditions void as respects third party liabilities required to be covered under section 5. The insurer could not avoid liability to a third party claimant on the ground that the insured had breached a policy condition, though the insurer might subsequently recover from the insured. The acquittal was upheld.
Outcome
Accused acquitted on the charge of using a motor-cycle without valid third party insurance
Facts
The accused was charged with riding a motor-cycle without valid third party insurance, and with three other offences including dangerous driving and driving without a Certificate of Competency or driving licence. He was convicted on the latter three counts but acquitted on the insurance charge. At the time of the offence, the accused possessed neither a Certificate of Competency nor a driving licence, but he produced a Certificate of Insurance issued by Jubilee Insurance Company. The policy contained a proviso excluding coverage for any person driving who was not duly licensed or permitted under the licensing or other laws to drive the motor-cycle. The Resident Magistrate acquitted the accused on the insurance charge, concluding that the policy provided a complete answer to the charge. The Attorney General appealed by way of case stated.
Issues
- Whether a policy of insurance against third party risks remains valid when the owner or person driving a motor vehicle lacks a Certificate of Competency or driving licence.
- Whether section 8 of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, 1945 renders void policy conditions that would exclude liability where the insured drives without lawful competency.
- Whether the proviso in the insurance policy excluding coverage for unlicensed drivers applied to the insured himself or only to other persons driving with his permission.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Acquittal of the accused on the fourth count upheld.
- Case not remitted to the Magistrate for further action.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, 1945 s.4(1)
- Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, 1945 s.5
- Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, 1945 s.8
- Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, 1945 s.10(1)
- Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, 1945 s.10(2)
- Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, 1945 s.10(4)
- Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 232 of the 1948 Laws of Kenya) s.13(1)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.