Motor & General Insurance Co.Limited v PC431 Arkurst And Another (CIV APP 2 of 1975) [1976] SLSC 6 (30 May 1976)

ee 1 eH LPs SUIRBNG COURT OF SUBARA LRONE at \ eet i fs I! 7 i % ia MH. lion, Mr, Justice 0.0.8, Cole - Chief Justice | eh PER tion. Mr. Jnsiteo 3.0.". Betta = Justice of iho prone Gr ' Fadl lion. Me, Juntice B. L. Luke ~ Justice of tho Suvreme Ct. AL lon. Hro, Justice A.V.A, Avvnor-Renmer- Justice of Appeal M al Hon, Mr, Justice $,C,B, Varne - Justice of Appeal By Civil Appeal No. 2/75 font iaaw ae BEN: ~ Re Ha Motor & General Insurance Co, Ltd, ~ Appellants aiid thee l Vs. rite CH P.C, 431 Arkurst Bae and = Respondents Heel Pigeyy D.C, 173 Santigie . 7 pyc Hd. fe taeks | ABbo. cartier Sac. ( with him Id. Clinton Bsr. for the AyneLlants). : ie BRMLK. Basma ise, (with him U.W. Cover Eso, ba Miia. Christine Iiording and G. Petts Esc.) for the Respondenta on hae i a Hy Torda, 1 have ted the apportenity snd plaswre of re ding BS crudite Geibion of wy Mononryle snd Learned brother Luke, J.3.C. is a sh to cxoress my gretitnde and grest appreciation for the bare’ he his exerted and the Incid reasoning he has advanced in | » FBSbiring at nis finsl conclusion, However, with the greatest respect ea enn, I do not ayree with Nis rexsoniny nor the final conc]rsion. | ohet 4 BM oneay, Hy Lords, I shall treat the ese before us in this way, | pase { WEfg the facts of the ease have deen clearly siiated by my learned | < BRE \ Qik dror Luke, J.5.C.. and the course tho c@¥8@ Ins travelled to this | ope | EPH. 1 entirety ogroo sith vin on wine Ja to be proved by the BA “Itontontss or . Q) of * Veh " st q Mefovtonts on reqvired by S, 11(1) of Hotor Vehicles (third Marty | * Bronce) ac 135 of lava of Sierra Leone(hereinatter ¢ LLoa j 4 y ee We vot hi ou vith «repetition of whet my

at 2 a8 j an Horned brother hes sleoody sts bod. w _ Ib is sy comniaares Pema TA te elvis of the res~onde ntin Fighter section 11(1),i8 ebsolwie. ‘the rea condents are not parties to # JS contract bebyuen the: Insuker. ay} sho Insured, nonetheless < fe jihis section gives the Reovondents the right to make the claim, PR Gi eo owb-neetion 11(1) Woginning at "not uithstanting"s...eeeeee ee — ae to the ond. ean I agree vith the matters whieh, ny Learned brother said aro % te yon dispute with regard to Police Sergeant Coker's evidence. Pegbider (iv},iPtrocl ihe reqirenents stated therein, in accordance 4 van 8. 6 of "he Act" and Rule 10 of the Hotor Vehicles (Third ps arty Insurance) Rules dowd vith tho dagne of road Licence for ‘the 1 FAanicrc. This hes nothing to de with the third party under "fhe ate oxcept in uo fur on the expiry date of the nolicy of Insurance ey concerned vis @ via his cl<in ender i.11(1) of "The Act". ey Hy fords, T do aot thinkl it is necess-rv for this Court, .in the Bt: ont cane, to construe the nrovision of S. 6 of "fhe Act," since eg isqne of 2 valid ro-d licence for car ¥lj.6303 does not arise, i oe ocder to puetsin their elsin, the resnondents did not have to ; foe @ whether the vehicle hvd a valid ro*d Licence or not. es iE What is the evidenti-l volve of Bxh, "BY? I will concede oo E (2 fedncip-] Licensing A: thority entered nore particulars 4 F Bh "DY than uaa rey iced vy lav. Did this render the entry | ACMbalid or of no evidentirl valve? I do not think so. 4 “SX vill ex mine the provinion of Lay whieh made Exh, "3" i we: teivable in evidence. §, 61

(1) Rond trafic Act, No. 62 of a oF hod cured ihe infraction of wrt vould otherwise be hearsay ~ oe 2B) 8. 6102) roraas Br "In any conse ov ratier relating to a motor qty vehicle or to my lieenes, persit cortificnte § or oMer doewunt, fared unter thie Act or ¥ jog ony repo tion mule herenmer, the wroduetion ae Ea doamane WineIe coihe ca Gory ot: ang ial = ae ii ronan.

Bey 3 ‘Bipae: Bite i entry in» r@sinter or @ copy of a Licence, 4 + ig ponrit, ovrtitieste or other document as aforesaid Bede by or from tho records of the Princinal Licensing ans Authority or a Licensing Authority,or any officer | iat demted bv such «thority for that pyrpone, shall 2 iy ho orims freie evidence of any matter, fect or thing " bio ie steted or opperring thoreon," i Hor It ie therefore evident ths! the entries on Bxh, "DM , ee i Bitte prima facie evidence of what in ntated thereon, provided tho an Biggertrics aro once rosuired to be made according to law. | ice | pice Lyell V. Konnedy 1 Avy, C9. 4X7 at. 449 | Pe ae x ft Bay Prever a cleay distinction . mst be drawn betwaen tho cases i Bit 1 Fe Gpoforzea bo by my Ie-rned brother and myself supra, from the | 4 oy Hnstant case, his Hon, Court has never been called uvon to GPiitormret the ontrics on the Rogioter of Motor Vehicles And Hed Higitraiicrs, nor his it ever given an opinion on their ovidential mine, Ina lone tine of eave 46 haa been hold, that what is Ipapoe required to be entered according to law cannot be adminsible fella evidenev 3 nroot of such cnérif®, It should ve noted, Liiirever, that these cases Neve dealt vrimorily vith rezistration i Fra! bicths, devths, bevtiona, marringes, “nd pedigree. Ina canse Red i fig’ tin nvtere, it is my conzidercd view, the princinle ia not Gbroticovie. t ho Ae wr Tearned crother han clearly pointed ont the relevant Pigetry on Deh, "3" io: A qi | i E RET OF Lie uoR i { Hs in COD INSURANCE PoLToY : Ho! et mee { a Fdesnee io, Erm fo Ho. Glosing Date H j efor 529 2/3 51/12 2 3.8.71 | } (Hi + H the entries bers Inmursnee on bxh, "BY aopar not to be ail ii rs | B fiese that sweated hove beer on it; bub thin w: «5 docuiont: which i H id iff Best bo be ovodneve under 5. 6 of Lhe Aet to the Licensing \ ie | Movkky, to obiin rocd License, 1 think the Princes p: i > ( 1 nie the Prinei pal i r | ee uy pa — ———EeEeEeEEEEEEEEEeEEEe——eEe

a 4 Joo | : da a om i ] konsing Aultortty had an dimplicd duty to record, tho Certificate Hi a Phrovrance uo “rodveed on Fxh, "B", My Lorde, the provision t is. 6 world to dofented if Mis were not dono, Indood the object ! i Bithe Act vowld ve anllified wi the inkerost of instico would not i 1) * Bhronotoa, mm povinion, this ontiry of the cortifieate of i i Riwance constitutes prim freiv evidence, that Policy of Insurance ] i 7 Mititiod "2" expired on 3rd August, 1971. | ie frp | By One cannot. so Muyond whit is on beh, "B+ §. 61 (1) refers: | | : s evidence in rebuttable bnét thin has not boon dono, | WW Bernie is tro evidenco the resronents relied on to. prove their { i fein against Appellants, that on the Lot August, 1971 whon the i Petent took place, tho vehicle WU.6303 wis insured with the Appellant Hit | a i Ff ony conse, Kon During J. in making his findings did not rely Hy eb on thin evilenee, and rightly so, Me considored the entire i Biiionce befure him, He relicd also on the evidence of Nuctarr | Phoned Kamara tho witnuss for tho Aynellanta. Ht} fA tho earned Judge nod tia to say: i} Ht "In fset there is no evidence before this Court | i i thot the defendants vere Insurers against Third i S Party risks of Ir. Thompson at the material time fF a the necident took plaice." i Batic Court of Avpeal, the Court found that there was some evidence Bre the Ilish Court and they procceded to evaluate snd draw the eH Bony inference; the Court went further and ¢ealté with tho | | # w Of estoppel in view of the evidence. The evidence of Police Hh Bi coter Iva ten stated in the WEBER EF ny warned brother. HHI Bs cviacnce of Muctarr Kamara ie prognant with facts which the Ht S Fponients covld not have known or given in evidence. i ! a Ny Lords, T sn of the opinion that the Court of Anpeal, after iH Faget consider sriion of the evidence before the Lower Court, drew th 2 correct inference that W.6303 was jnsured with the Anpeliont Hl 4 a | me A we

i { 1 ENE dq 5 vot || | Mi Htompany on ite lat Aveust, 1972. “NN i ai | @he Court hed Wein to govt i i i i | "T thin: Crow tht: evidence if ve Jd hyve boon ' i Bi oper bo draw the infereney thrt tho vehicle wo ‘| i a fmerod on tho lnk Awwb, L972." | | 4 AW Bhi ny oniuion ty torbiried nod only by the entry of thy expiry atl Piste of Gerbicicn'e of Joe renee on Fx, "DY, bet also by the i i Elevidonce of fwree Ghat MED.A, Thomppon Iria fleot policy with | I aE AA Blip. aywent Beh, BoP ved be Sober inte acconnt vhen it comes \ it 2 Vi Blto payment: of prowinn Ja rospeot of Pluvi. volicy: Us6303 io q i} Fi il fiiert of cook vease* Held Wr hee, I esnnot say whether the f1eot | il fea 1 }| Ff itaron in wore Gas the we ve Helo 1 have mentioned, she has i | 5 AL Fjnore than 2 velielss saer eitvevn vader Plect poliay, Provided } i ie {Eee Wh e Tan instructed T - email: .ciew soliey even throne: promiua not FF Heid, T hove proviowily renal on instruction M.BeAy Thompson | i Hi poiiey in remwet of vehiel: iamred wilh us," I i iH Bd Evil only ate this “aint be whet wy learned brother has It i gaia about the 4 ue of eiloppel. That is to say, estonpel must } a be plexed at the first o mortenity. This, the Respondents i} | Fa iaited to to, Show “nerefore crnot avail themsulves’ of the : isone of antonnel. & yl a Hy Lords, ia view of int I have avid sepra, T would e dismiss the peal, Phoapped7 rendre diseiazed, oy ZO. | aie B0¢, B, varne i fa Justice of Appeal. ne a i 1 Ii a i - fi i PY Ht AY | BY i BY WW i ii x B f \ , it

Pid We] Be Ue