Companies
Jubilee pursues Sh280m from reinsurance broker
Friday July 21 2023
Jubilee Insurance Centre in Nairobi. FILE PHOTO | DENNIS ONSONGO | NMG
A UK-based insurance broker has failed to stop a Sh280 million dispute filed by Jubilee Allianz General Insurance (K) arguing that courts in Kenya cannot handle the matter.
High Court judge Alfred Mabeya dismissed the objection filed by CK Re Limited International Reinsurance Brokers on the grounds that it is a limited company incorporated in London and had no presence in Kenya.
Read: Jubilee completes regional unit stake sale to Allianz
The broker also challenged the case stating that the reinsurance contracts were between Jubilee and the reinsurers themselves and the UK firm was only an insurance broker.
Justice Mabeya rejected the application to terminate the case saying the High Court is vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit.
“Of importance at this juncture is that the plaintiff has pleaded its case based on a contract which it has brought before this court which clearly vest the courts in Kenya with jurisdiction to determine any disputes arising therefrom,” said the judge.
The court said denial of liability under the contracts by the broker does not in any way take away the court’s jurisdiction to determine the case.
The court was informed that the UK company was a broker who placed risks underwritten by Jubilee with various reinsurance companies.
Jubilee, the court heard, would pay the agreed reinsurance premiums to the broker who would then forward the same to the reinsurers, and all claims and payments under the reinsurance slips would be made through the broker.
According to the broker, the relationship between itself and Jubilee was that of a broker as it was only an intermediary between the reinsurers and Jubilee Insurance.
According to the firm, the reinsurance contracts sought to be relied upon by Jubilee were not binding on them but only between Jubilee and the reinsurers.
Read: Jubilee and GA gain life premiums market share
In an affidavit filed in court, the firm through Martin Andrew Wright contended that the place of performance of the contract was London where all services were rendered, documentation generated, payments done and claims settled.
