Motor & General Insurance Company Limited v P.C. 431 Arkurst & Anor (CIV APP 2 of 1975) [1976] SLSC 2 (5 April 1976)

Bee sco X

a ) . Bam. |

REM! IN TITS SUPRMT COMT OF STBRRA LONE . 4 aa : : |

eay :

Be alg .

+ ae Civ. Anp.2/75 | i Be . oe er : : aia T.0.8. Cole Chief Juntice .

+ EEE cv. Botts Justice of the Supreme Court

. oS Bad, Livesey Iuko Justice of the Svoreme Court : Bee Yt SAREE, Avenor—Renner Justice of Anpeal :

} ae: ° : P

1 SaBeeii.c.s. varne Justice of Anpeal = Seg eron & GouARAT TNGURANCE CorPANY TqvTesD ~ Av PBLLANTS {

: aes vs. | speameees?.C. 451 ARTURSE a

. ae ok : ; pa eC. 175 saweis1s ~ RESPONDENTS I! Bee oe ao eRegLR.O. Garber Seq. (with hin lid, Clinton Bsq. for the it ] pee i SSameemopcliants) S.N.K. Basin. Bsg. (with him U.W. Coker Bsq., t i Bee i . ; i

\ TGs. Christine Mardin; and G. Betts Bsa.) for the | '

. SaEaeghsrondents HT | Be cc: a . Ha ey JUVGKB NT . k Baa) ae 4 “SRP Reae,C.J.:~ - Hy Lords, I have alrewly had the benefit and . i i er j AB tn i

y Ee leasure of revding before-hrin’ the erudite ffimedaeof my /E~'* }

sMiewaeerned brother, the Hon, Hr. Justice B, Ivesey Luke, as K [ ee ‘ H Be

8 ERB) as that of the Nonovrahle Mr. Justice 5.C.E, Warne. | Bees kc k oh Saat me stroightsvey me it clear that vith the Linnl i Bel cos S| MEG eeemclnsion of tho iohourable Hr. Justice Iuke T have no , | Ee Sipissent. “ 1]

— GABPEGE. there is one significant point, hovever, in the course — | Ree ass “Peet tho reasonin; of thy Honourable Mr. Justice luke with which ]

\ SEB do not quite agreu. Tt relates to that vortion of bis f

oS Fe) cs 7 :

WEB p gio in which ho doclt in omtendo with Exhibit 'B'. | po ie: = PAGE! With the gro ivst respect, taking into account his f Bs ea CAMEEPResoning, Ido fecl that ja tiie porticular instance ‘fhis i

. See . : Aime tieese can be diotingnishe Poin ases he | ted. I

+ oe can be distinguished from the eases he h-a quoted |

a ee eo that it way net hive been expressly stated in our rele« d

4 we re ee

: 4 Pugpet Acts vist the Lover itreffie Licensing Authority insgduty to Jey i a Bess fwcord in writing ths pre-reenisite req-irements that f ti

: ees: aA the tI

= | ; re 62 = ; If i rn a EPerotive Certificate of Inourance should be produced to thom | ay : ior before or ut the time a licence was issued. ~I do feel, * ‘* ; 1 . 4 wer, that taliing into consideration all the statutory ; | il | . - a isions to wich my learned brother Justice Iuke has already , R | - Bea erred — and I will not tie you by referring to, them in 1 a Peat again ~ there secus to mo an implied duty imposed on the | i . a Stor Traffic Licensing Authority to plaé¢e on some kind of ropora | i | Pe i , a sao details of the relevant Certificate of Insurance presented to ‘ i | a 2 authority as requixed by law, Sueh a Licensing Authority may « : a rien to keep separate books for recording those details before | All : Tp teoncc for a particular vehicle is issueds | Ht ‘ cS E would hovever endorse the procedure now carried on by the ! | a a por Traffic Licensing Authority as disclosed by Bxhibit 'B! as a: | Be at ! : Bie g appropriate in the circumstances of this case, i i : a In my view, this neither venders sxhikit 'Bt invalid or i a ct thless or valueless, It hss sowe evidential value which ought i : a ia taken into account by both the High Court, the Court of Appeal 4 ! 7 E. a ourselves.in considering ths exse of the pertien concerned, In i We: ©] GRR ss, tov done a in Goin’: to wy final deodoion, 1¢ ay reamed |. : 4 o uthior Iuke's view is acecpted on this point jt will mean that, | i a a te apart from the sociolosical jurisprudential value which | i Ss Pa nounda that Courts should endeavour, whore possible to make the | ii ae errk, | a aa in their sociotyg vhore 1 defendant muleted in damages and costs * a we ytho High Court refuses for good and aufficient reasons to produca g I tne trial before the High Court hia or her third party certi- : oF ba late of insurance to eubisfy the provisions of Jection’ 11 of v. a8 . : ; poten Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act (Cap. 153) (which 7 Pe hereafter refer to as “fhe Act') and the insurer refuses | _ e aa Pe Sati | |

:. eft 4 it eS arto do the same. or gives excnses that ho does rot keup proper, | | . J ‘ | * #@ibeercords, the public vill have nowhere. to. turn. to. ‘| | Rs tS a ' Poa In rev view the main puriose of the combined effect of i iG | : ae Feotion 11 of the Act - the. brsis of the claim before the Wigh | j | + Bae Four = and Section 6 of the Act 29 well as Rule 10 of thy Hi. ih : Po oe (Third Party Insurance) Rules. (Crp. 133) (heveinatter alt : a a Fpterioa to as “fhe Rules!) is thet whet is rveviread to bo a ") | a : fprodueca to the Hotor Traffic Licensing Authority nt wht, in . i | Be view, should be entered in the rceords of that Authority yl : a Te noncot other things; in.+ Certifierie to mow thst on the date 2 ne fon which the licenee comes inte operation thers i) be in force a Ae fe and I stress the expression ‘there will be in foreu! ~ 2 i | . Ea vor-tive splicy in resect of tho motor veticle “hich is being 14 ; Poy hiconawn | : = al ‘the evidence before 13 vreve the emntrery in -y view. Por, ae q of accorliny to Bryhfsrt °Bt the relevant licence c-re inta force i aa Jom tho Ath Awgwrt LOTL uhun there amsosra to hy na ovvrvtive i] , a Ee Ae Certiticrte of Insvrance in force. ; : | ae Bf In sum, what Tan enty vooring to 8-7 shortly ond sinvly, i / . at Wis. Goction 11 of the act should quickly be amended i ! a ia bestablishin: eficetive »rovisions in cur laws to enchle memirs : 4 og ae fot thu public who have b-en given judgment be the superior courts ie : ~ a og or Republic to be lwfully. indomnificd by insurers m.gondiers 7 : a ce the fget that the evidence ot the tricl yoints to the fact P| B ee Hs in this e:si:) that notwitheSanding that thé require’ yroof ; 7 : ae to the Motor Praflic Liconsing Authority at the relevant ee a Fime shows that on the @vte when the Licence comes inte spervtion . a aes there wi. ak be in Coree a poliey of insurance, in'spite of the » BEE pact thot thyre is conelrsivs ovidencs “ointing to the fict that } aoe Jon tho dvke of tho sccident there 18> valid operatizs paticy ; : a ae Feovoring third »rtiur, ‘This is of obvions and.utmost inportuacs . fy a a. fmomnse, Afoon the Lew atonts <E prevent te “rovisiona of Seekion | | a oy of Heikek oy wudL a Rule 10 of thy Rules ore nat con-Livd ith, Boe en Sesiion LL of te: nek in inces y-tive, Th is afsosrely hoped | AB ER tht togistetine oo cauren rege nding We whole onesbion _ DRS Ly Aa |

= 4 6s“ | it Ao : : : : |

oo |

— oa Bi

+) See : 4 : : a Beg G ee | Hii

: BRGY notor Vchicles Third Party Insurcancy in tierra Leone will 1 i

: Se in

. “fem quickly reviewed in order te avoid hardship to the public : H eee Ny . “e bin this e:se with partiouler reference to victims of Motor ‘ll = Bee ee BB fi i t + RMERMbcidents. HI mod | Be a Finally, on the cnestion of esto»pel I do agree with the qt

: DEES . | ‘Sgeteevs oxressed by my learned brother Luke that the principles E i Bas: aa if ae i

2 RRR low “exoress d in Vandexitie's esse pronound viry sovnd | i

| See —o He cs ad

: a Bmoctrincs of L-aw on the subject znd I will adens and apply them. Wh Be tr i

: Bed Ido not think any mefrl -mrvone wilt be served in remitting |

ARBAB cone to the High Court for ~ re-trial beesuse Bxhinit "Bt AH Beka . peas 2 : iH MB ks for itsolf most clorucntly. It is my sincere hope that : |

.. Sea i

mee: = i

‘Sal peavey! the. particnlar cirevmstinces of this c:se, the + +pellanta would | |

: Cea - :

2 A také gross cddvent-ge of Legal technic :l#tics, I say nO moro : i ee: a —— :

. ee this; “thet they will be vroperly and suitably advised in iq | Bs: . 1 a i He-public intercst by their legal representative. i

. . BERS 1 would allow the appool. | i]

a | I! ‘Be ; ; aE. Bah : ||

, Sie So ei . | Re ae cia

. 3 dha C.0.B. Cole ela

. See . : Chicf Justice ‘ | ‘

Se : 1 i a . | a EG ! | SMBSehn Apri1, 1976. : a

me) ed lial

eee: | ao ¢ » ac ‘ | iM > oo “oo pelt 2S i

< BS ;

: ee | Be . Hi

: See | |

~ oe . . iit Bs Hog H

» ERG . Hi

ae a) Mil