Motor & General Insurance Co.Limited v PC431 Arkurst And Another (CIV APP 2 of 1975) [1976] SLSC 7 (8 May 1976)

oo bt F i” ie iu ig_ suvaune count _or_stgRpa .Lz0Ne ie * Econ: > By 7 “s ¢ PB c.0.3. cots, Chier Justice ; BES s.cou. warts, Justice of the Supreke Court Gaye sxvser was, Justice of the Supreme Court MER A. auunor-inennen, Justice of Appeal Ff. fy S.c.B. ans, Justice of Appeal aah | : Civil Appeal No.2/75 Rote bay MOTOR & GENiAL INSURANCE Co. LO, = APPELLANTS pan : oF “ He, : | aie P.C, 431 ARKULST qa « ae a P.c. 179 SaNrTorE = kesponDents les x es ee ee ee CM Hes ¥ . dea supquent — jomaran, i976. aS Wit.0. Garver, Esq., (vith him M,J, Clinton, Esq.) ee AoE PRPIS.u.K. Basma, Esq., (with him U.¥, Coker, Esq., eh Weis, cueistine Harding and G, Notts Rea.) for the Respondents aig FEU ipreser Late, J.8.c.1 On sot August, 1971 two motor vehicles eae BR csi onc Wi 650) oni « ianicover vo 6075) were invoired aay EMiin'a road accident. As a result of the accident tho LBM spondents vio were passengers in the Jamicover at the f MBP ateriar time suffered personal injuries, In due course ea . UiRilbe vovponde ste instituted procoedinge 4m the High Court UEgainet .i.A. Thompson (hereattor referred to as the Beeroniont) Ure eeglatered omer of 4U,6309 clalaing damugen ee WE porounat injuries. On 51% Beceuber, 1972 Uke IKE i

| ae 8 ® | Gye : = 44 ik Py cont dortvora juagnent against tho defendant avardive | BEBE (oenttor rerorced to as the Satenent deve). Araed | TE es uns datenonts tn ronronoonte snatstaten YUP mira rarty ansurance Act cop. 193) on 9th Decenber, |B GE soction 11 oF caps 193 | Ba in thes Statonont of Claim tie respondents alleged | YP wore ine insurers of the dafendant against third party | Me ciate an respect of taxi car 2 6903 (Noreat tor referred q aH ‘ denied that at the material time they were tho insurers } + For tne dorendant against third party risk An respect oF | iBe-teadings ves vhsthor the appelionte were the snurers ] SF ce ene aatemane against ented pacty rtak bn respect of i eee ee main AB rua she mason of pronf om tnt Lntva waa etoarty 00 Ae tne vespomtonta. 4 vas). ‘The responlycts called two witnesses. ‘The first j Linens was the Senior Kegistrar, High Court ve produced . AF is ese Fits of the notion agntnat tne dotomnnts He i the second wiluesss was one HLiJja Fmanuel Coker, a Potice 7 | ee ab ant tontorcd an imdex card dae spect of th i

ry 64 r ae 3 RS tact cor. The indox onrd wna crintttod 4m evilense ant Bee cy pee by to anid intor alia ton tho Tat of Augtis BD aug Genoral Insurance Coe Lta.*, The appellants called . 1B caw sttanee namely Huctara Mohave Ramarts he Gonoral 3 Manager of the appellant company. Mr, Kamara said inter Faia tine the vsiinde vos Anoorod wit his company from ; BB ana gune, 1970 to tat June, 1971 aml that from teh June, { a oT! to tat August, 1971 won the accident Fook place J SE sae vontore var noe ansurad wtih his company. Kons BAY ang J_ asnivoret Jutguont on 1988 tones 197 aismissing ABE ue ronrontentet ctoim. 1 te Jodanont tne earned ie ain fact there 4s no evidence before na tte Court that the defendants were a insurers against Third Party risks of | By fir. Thompson al the material time the i ob accident took place." ” | ee ahe respondents appoated to the Court of Appent | E otejan, JS.h. (as they then were) and Boceles Davies Jude) 1 ean! tho nppont on Use 23d, 30EH aul 312b daye oF Mary ap 97h. Judgment as delivered on 16th Aprit, 1975 GB attowing Uke append and adjudging that the appediauts i ae respondents. ‘the juxdgnont fas atveron oy Tosan J.Aey tne otter foe Learned MF justices concurring. ‘Tha Court hold hat the Learned # vruat guage ome wrong when ho saad eat there wae Ne einanes twat tho wppetianes wore the insurers MGNtNet | sried party etak of ths dafumdant in euapect of the Hext i 3 se at tno tine the acetitent tok plage, the Gaur

i

: | "WR twrtnor nora tat unere vas some evidence, and that | HF ime evidence une provided by the evidence of Police Ae Sergeant coker amt Ex.

3. The Court then proceoded to JH ara tho inference Ut the taxt ear was insured with r SP ue appetiants on 1st August, 1971 140. the date of the Seeldont, Tho Court ateo°hold that the appellants were estopped by thelr conduct froa disputing Liability, 1] aypeated to this court. Tho taauos that arise in this appeal may be Formuta ted thus:— q (4) thethor there was sume evidence Uiat + a cortificate of insurance in respect : of a poltey of snsuranee effected by ] 4 tie defendant and issued by the appeallants B 7 in favour of the defendant in respect of | q vehicle YU 630) vas in foree on Ist August, , 1971, and if 50 whether .the Court of Appeal i provordy svalunted Wat evidences i

(41) Mhethor the appetlants were estopped by | uote eatiliat or oeliervie, tree uenying | Lianitity. an The Fivat tnany ts formsated 4H the way Lt te, jf vecause the respondontet claim vas based on S.11(1) Fo cap. 199 whten ronda as CoLtawas= "Lf artor a certificate of insurance laa Hoos Feened in favour of the person by whow a potiey na becn effector ar * 4 9 certi“lesto oF security hme bean Leauod in Fayoue of the person whose LLAbLLi ty

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.