Motor & General Insurance Co.Ltd v P.C 431 Arkurst & Another (CIV APP 2 of 1975) [1976] SLSC 16 (30 April 1976)

au_ti2, suri court _or_sTpRRa .LZ0Ne Ly - €.0,2, Cols, Chiet Justice | | S.Ct. BETTS, Justice of the Supreke Court

2. Livesey Luk, Justice of the Supreme Court As AUUNOR-RUNNE, Justice of Appeal fk 8.c.8. vanns, Justice of Appeal u i 7 Civil Appeal No.2/75 a “MOTOR & GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, = APPELLANTS a os ¥ fan i. PoC. 451 ARKUST

aot + B.C. 179 ‘SAUTIGIE = RESPONDENTS ie ~ ne in a us iv WENT oT APRIL, 1976. Wiiin.o. Garver, Bsa., (vith him HJ, Clinton, Bea.) Pilrer the Appotsants soe Bilin. oasma, Boa., (with him U8, Coxer, Eos, i ' é, HF sey Luke, JeS.C.t On Tat August, 1971 tvo motor vehicles Rats PAF taxi one 310 6909 and « Landrover WO 0075) verw snvolved Fe cna accssont. Ae « result of the accident the : ay. 3 BMerecsar tino auefercd personal injuries, In due course Bee nae Mok.A. Thompson (hereafter referred to as the GF Froniont) tno vogintered omer of #0 6309 olatning danagen AUER, personal injurios. On 5th December, 1972 the lich ig me ied eg

{ Court delivered judgment against the defendant avarding damages as follows: the 1st reapondent Le.1125.506 ' and the 2nd respondout Le.1795.50e and costs to be taxed (hereafter referred to as the judgment debt). Armed with this judgment, the respondents instituted proceedings in the [gh Court against the appeLiants (who are approved Insurers under the Hotor Vehicles Third Party Insurance Aet Cap, 133) on 9th Decanbor, 1972 claiming payment of the judgment debt pursuant to Section 11 of Cap. 133. : In their Statonent of Claim the respondents alleged f antor alia that on the day of tie accident the appeLtants ) wore the insurers of tho defendant against third party © sisk in respect of taxi car "U 690) (hereafter referred © te as the taxi car), In their defenco, the appellants feetne ont last car, The Lenvo thereby ratsed by the f-iploadings was vaother the appellants were the insurers og the dofendant against third pacly risk in respect of tant cnr WU 690] on 1st August, 1971. That wag the main F seauc tat went to teint And Lt 1s smportant to state pat the burden of proof on that issue was cloarly on FP ano vespoutonta ie getion -as trked by Ken Ducing J. (ae he then Fas). tue reepotects catted to witnesses, The First 14 gvidence Ls not retovant for the purposes of thie appeal. Pcecomt witness sms one BLAJ® Bmmanuot Cokers a Fesise Be gorgoant attached to te bicansing ortice, Freetown. Me ved an index card sn respect of the promod ane Conder’ es a titel ilritetenitiminaiaatianiniiassly

Woe ti

Bo taxt car. The index onrd was ound ttod in evidonco and

4 marked Bx, 8, He said inter alia "on the Ist of August,

E> tho card show that the vehicle was insured with Notor

| and Gonoral Insurance Co. Ltd.", The appellants called

i vne witness nanely Muctaru Mohanod Kamara, the Goneral

J Monogsr of tho apyottnnt company. rs Hamme sail inter

| alla Uae tis voliiele vas insured with Mis company from

[. Bnd June, 1970 to Ist Juno, 1971 and that from Ist June,

é 1971 to Ist August, 1971 when the accident took place

J. the ventete was not dngured with is company. Kone

1 owing J. dotivored Judguent on 19th June, 197% dismissing

; tue respondents! claim, Tu hie Judgnont tho Learned

S| judge said inter alia

i tn tact there is ne evidence before

& insurers ogainal ‘Third Party risks of

ft ite, Thompson at the material time the

FP against that Jutgooats The Court of Appoal (C.A. Harding,

Trajan, Jsuh. (a8 toy then were) nud Beceles Davies J.A.)

Fear the appeal on to 23rd, 30th and 31st days of Hay,

k io. gudgmont vas delivered on 16th Apri, 1975

| crowing the appoad amd adjudging that the appetiants

Pay the Judyuont debt to the wespondonts, The Judgnont

vas duttvorod by ToJan J-A., the other to Learned

* justices concurring. The Court held that the Learned jeidonee that Uso appellants were tho ineurere against

| sutra Party etek of tho defendaut 4m respect of the taxt

car at ue time the asoldont took pace, Tho Court

y i P) i the evidence wns provided by the evidence of Police [if Serseant cokor.ond Bx. a, The Court then proceeded to t raw tho Anforenco that the taxi car vas insured vith F the appotiants on ist August, 1971 4,0. the date of the i fecident, The Court aleo“held that the appellants vere | estonped vy tate coniuet trom diamuting Labiisty, f. Tt Se against tune Judgment that the appellants have 4 appeated’ to this court, ‘Me Assues that arise in this appeal may be formulated thus:~ . k (i) ‘hether thore was some evidence that é a cortificate of insurance in respect t of a policy of insurance effected by po Kao defendant and issued by the appeallante b in favour of the defendant iin respect of Hy 1971, and if so whether the Court of Appeal f properly evaluated that evidence,

(41) “Mnethor the appellants were estopped by thoir coutuct or otherwise from denying Labi ty. : The first issu2 is formulated in the way it is, because the responieuts! claim vas based on S.11(1) of Cap, 133 which rends as follows:~ lias hoon feennd dn favour of the person " by whom a policy has been effected or j a certi“icote of security has beon issued ‘ in favour of the person whose liability . 4 covoro wy suen aeeurty Juuigmont in

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