Tag: Britam General Insurance

  • Britam Sued For Refusing to Pay Sh10 Million Insurance Claim

    Britam Sued For Refusing to Pay Sh10 Million Insurance Claim

    A Nairobi-based law firm has moved to court seeking damages after Britam General Insurance (K) Limited allegedly reneged on its commitment to honor a Sh10 million professional indemnity insurance policy, leaving the lawyer to personally settle a Sh1.3 million claim.

    Musyoki Benson & Associates Advocates, through its managing partner Benson Musyoki Nzakyo, has filed a lawsuit at the High Court accusing the insurance giant of breach of contract and acting in bad faith when it declined to indemnify him against a third-party claim that arose from his legal practice.

    The dispute centers around a professional indemnity policy numbered 580/053/1/001/905/2021/07 that Britam issued to Mr. Nzakyo after he completed a proposal form and paid the required premium.

    According to court documents, Britam confirmed on July 20, 2022, that it had insured the lawyer and issued him with a certificate of cover for the year commencing 2021.

    The legal battle stems from a property transaction that went awry.

    Mr. Nzakyo had represented John Matiti Kithendu in the purchase of a 0.040-hectare property in Diani, Kwale County, from Stephen Chebor Kipkemei Kipkebut, who trades as Baimet Contractors.

    As part of his professional duties, the lawyer issued an undertaking to pay the balance of the purchase price of Sh1.3 million within 14 days.

    However, complications arose when Mr. Nzakyo assisted his client in transferring the property title before the full payment was made.

    When he subsequently delayed in completing the purchase price payment, John K. Kibet of Oruenjo Kibet & Khalid Advocates sued him at the Milimani Law Courts, seeking to enforce the professional undertaking dated January 28, 2022.

    Upon being served with the lawsuit, Mr. Nzakyo immediately notified Britam and requested indemnification in accordance with the terms of his insurance policy.

    Initially, the insurer appeared cooperative, accepting the claim and demanding the policy excess of Sh50,000, which the lawyer paid in full.

    Acting under the doctrine of subrogation, Britam accepted the claim and appointed Messrs Ako & Co. Advocates to represent Mr. Nzakyo in the matter.

    However, the arrangement was short-lived. According to the court papers, the appointed law firm later declined to continue with the case and allegedly instructed them to cease acting in the matter.

    Mr. Nzakyo argues that Britam failed to identify or cite any clause in the policy document or proposal form that excluded conveyancing practice or professional undertakings, which he maintains are routine activities within the legal profession.

    Left without legal representation and facing potential professional consequences, he was compelled to personally settle the third-party claim.

    The lawyer paid a total of Sh1.3 million as the outstanding purchase price and an additional Sh100,000 in legal costs.

    The matter was subsequently marked as settled through a consent agreement dated March 1, 2024, but Mr. Nzakyo was left significantly out of pocket.

    In his court filing, Mr. Nzakyo describes Britam’s actions as “unmerited, unreasonable, and constitutes a fundamental breach of the contract.”

    He further alleges that the insurer’s conduct violates Section 80 of the Insurance Act, which prohibits misleading or ambiguous policy documents.

    The lawyer accuses Britam of acting in bad faith and engaging in corporate impunity while making an unjustifiable attempt to avoid its lawful obligations under the insurance contract.

    He maintains that the refusal to honor the policy terms has caused him significant financial loss and damage to his professional reputation.

    As a result of Britam’s alleged breach, Mr. Nzakyo seeks several remedies from the court.

    He wants the court to declare the insurer’s repudiation of his claim as unlawful, unreasonable, and constituting a breach of contract.

    He is also seeking compensation totaling Sh1.45 million, which includes the Sh1.4 million he paid to settle the third-party claim and the Sh50,000 policy excess that Britam has allegedly withheld despite repudiating liability.

    Additionally, the lawyer is requesting that the court order Britam to pay interest on the sum of Sh1.45 million with effect from April 17, 2024, until full payment is made.

    Professional indemnity insurance is designed to protect lawyers, doctors, and other professionals against claims arising from their professional services, but disputes over coverage exclusions and claim validity continue to generate litigation.

    The case is scheduled for hearing on September 24, 2025, and will likely set an important precedent for how professional indemnity claims are handled in Kenya’s insurance sector.

    For Mr. Nzakyo, the outcome will determine whether he recovers the substantial personal funds he expended to fulfill his professional obligations while his insurer allegedly abandoned its contractual commitments.

    The dispute also raises broader questions about transparency in insurance policy terms and the obligations of insurers to clearly communicate coverage limitations to their clients, particularly in specialized professional contexts where the consequences of coverage gaps can be severe.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

  • KWS Boss Dr Erustus Kanga Under Radar Over Alleged Sh740M Staff Insurance Tender Scam

    KWS Boss Dr Erustus Kanga Under Radar Over Alleged Sh740M Staff Insurance Tender Scam

    Procurement watchdog nullifies controversial award to Britam as irregularities emerge in evaluation process

    Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) Director General Dr. Erustus Kanga faces mounting scrutiny following a damning ruling by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) that exposed serious irregularities in the awarding of a Sh740 million staff insurance tender.

    The procurement watchdog has ordered KWS to conduct a fresh evaluation of the controversial three-year health insurance contract after nullifying the initial award to Britam General Insurance Company (K) Limited, citing violations of procurement laws and unfair treatment of other bidders.

    Forgery and Foul Play Exposed

    At the heart of the scandal lies a sophisticated forgery scheme that saw Jubilee Health Insurance Ltd wrongfully disqualified from the tender process.

    PPARB’s investigation revealed that KWS evaluation committee members fell for a fabricated authorization letter purportedly from Jubilee, which was used to falsely implicate the company in submitting multiple bids through intermediaries.

    The forged document, allegedly issued by Jubilee on April 8, 2025, contained glaring anomalies including incorrect director names and a fictitious physical address.

    When Jubilee requested a copy of the supposed letter, company officials immediately identified it as fraudulent and denied any involvement in its creation.

    “The letter was a forgery perpetrated without Jubilee’s knowledge or consent,” the company stated in its defense, highlighting the sophisticated nature of the deception that initially fooled KWS evaluators.

    Price Inflation Under the Radar

    Adding to the controversy, PPARB discovered that while Britam emerged as the lowest bidder with a quotation of Sh710 million, the final letter of award mysteriously inflated the contract value to Sh740 million – an unexplained increase of Sh30 million that has raised questions about transparency in the process.

    More troubling still, KWS proceeded to issue a letter of intent to Britam at the higher Sh740 million price despite the tender proceedings being officially suspended on April 28, 2025, following Jubilee’s complaint about the forgery.

    Due Process Violations

    PPARB, chaired by lawyer George Murugu and including members Alice Oeri and Alexander Musau, found that KWS had fundamentally breached procurement procedures by failing to afford Jubilee a fair hearing before disqualification.

    “Before arriving at any adverse decision, it is important to give the affected party a fair opportunity to respond to the said allegations. Failure to accord a hearing amounts to a breach of their right to be heard, a key tenet of fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act,” the board stated in its May 19, 2025 ruling.

    The board emphasized that KWS was obligated to seek clarification from Jubilee, especially given the serious consequences of disqualification from such a substantial tender.

    Eight Bidders, One Winner

    The tender, advertised early this year for comprehensive group medical insurance cover for KWS board of trustees and staff for the period 2025-2028, had attracted significant interest from eight major health insurers: Jubilee, Britam, CIC General Insurance, Old Mutual, Star Discover, APA Insurance, AAR Insurance, and Liaison Group Insurance Brokers.

    The competitive nature of the tender and the substantial value involved make the procedural violations all the more concerning, particularly given KWS’s role as a key state corporation responsible for wildlife conservation.

    Leadership Under Pressure

    Dr. Erustus Kanga, who has served as KWS Director General with over 20 years of experience in biodiversity conservation, now faces questions about the procurement processes under his leadership. The seasoned conservationist, who previously held the position of Secretary for Wildlife at the Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife & Heritage, has built a reputation around transparency and good governance in wildlife management.

    The insurance tender scandal represents a significant test of Dr. Kanga’s leadership at a time when KWS is grappling with various challenges including funding constraints, human-wildlife conflict, and the need for sustainable conservation financing.

    Road to Resolution

    PPARB has given KWS 45 days to conduct a fresh, transparent evaluation of all submitted bids, effectively giving Jubilee and other bidders a second chance to compete fairly for the lucrative contract.

    The board’s decision serves as a stern reminder to all public entities about the importance of adhering to procurement laws and ensuring fair treatment of all bidders regardless of their market position or perceived advantages.

    For KWS, an organization that prides itself on conservation excellence and ethical practices, the tender controversy presents an opportunity to demonstrate that the same high standards applied to wildlife protection also govern its internal operations and procurement processes.

    As the re-evaluation process begins, all eyes will be on Dr. Kanga and his team to ensure that the second attempt at awarding this crucial insurance contract meets the highest standards of transparency, fairness, and legal compliance that Kenyan taxpayers deserve.

    The scandal also highlights the ongoing challenges in Kenya’s public procurement system, where despite robust legal frameworks, implementation gaps continue to create opportunities for irregularities that undermine public trust in government institutions.


    This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.