Royal Exchange Assurance Limited v Bazzy (CIV APP 1 of 1972) [1973] SLSC 2 (17 October 1973)

| F : Ko.

E IN_271 SUPREME com oF STERRA TONE |

Gig corom: = ¥ Hon. Mr, Justice S.C,W. Betts - Justice of the Supreme Court © BL ton. ur. Justice Milip Bridges - Chiot Justice of the Gambia |“. = Ton, Mr. Justice Es Livesey Luke ~ Justice of the Supreme Court * Hon, Mr.’ Justice S.J. Forater - Justice of the Supreme Court : a3 Hon, Mr, Justice N, E. Drowno-Marke - Justice of Appeal ae] ‘ ug i as Civ. Appeal y & WoL1/ \ ae 17th October, 1975. |

: oe Royal Bxchange Assurance Limited = —_Appelanta | e ona | ; -sae mer ten

Ba 53

ope | . 6

ee IUVDGNENT .

e |

ne deepal

S oe go

a

8. Hs Harding Esq. For the Appellants = PS of \e} i aH 8. %. K, Boom Esq. 1g eRe

ot ee

ar J. He Smythe 0.0, ' MBL | | tg Miss Olive Taylor For the Respondent pies

a A. Te0. Metzger Boq. pea

a Ee

ae pS santas oe Pee

eu, a ee ie

eq Bon toe

. 4 eel

Be: . ae oa nanan 0007 nnn sae |

BU susmsont norinaned on Wael Taw g0Cllan 03. it yI Appel aysinst the judgucnt of that Court (Cole, C.J., |! o euard of L9,490.41 cents (damages and costs) together j 4 a accident, 14th July,’ 1966 to 21st August, 1970 the date | ‘ : of judgment, This action arose from a motor traffic { 4 J case vnion started in the Hughitratets Gourt, Hono, an” [i union Sah! Kised Kongewa vas charged vith several ] | 7 offences including driving a vehicle "without first ye. obtaining a License to da co!. He pleaded guitty to th 4 inst onarge ant vao fined 1100 or threo months imprison _ / ont im defaunt. After konitcws!s conviction Touric tA ae Dass who wan nur at «comuat of to aciaan€ uemuene Hid | a an action for damwes wrinst one Sorie Mansaray, the ~ i i Ingured, and the driver Kondews in the High Court then Hf : , oo Supreme Court. On the date of the accident i4th July i 4 1966, the vehicle W) 809 was insured with the Royal. Hie Pin srohange Asourasce Coupany Linsted, Sucgunat a etven iS a | for the Plaintiff in the sum of W6,500 (Six thousand ftve- : if a tmundred Leones) with conts witch vere taxed! at 12,990.41 > [AM es shew ie a 8 (vo thousand ning, hundred and ninety 1eono8,sndforty-ong AY Zz conta) and antorout. ‘Te Viaintitf notified the defendants i ! a y cs ‘To judgment romaining unuatisfied, the Plaintiff thercupon He cae successfully sued the Roy.2 axchange Assurance Company VE 1 4 See ery a

4 -2- Bl OR © @P tasted tor tho rscovury of the Judgpunt debt. The Royal : : nnn: ar to this Court. "te Appellants/Defendunts arjued thot the court of Appeal was wrong in Liv in thsir construction of 5 ES Sections 9 and 11 of the Notor Vehicle (Third Party a = Insurance) Act, Chapter 133 of the Laws of Sierra Leone, a ' ea 4 Thoy armed in-effect that in the particular circumstances = of the accident, thoy are not obliged in law to' satisfy a be j ‘the Judguent in favour of tho Respondent. Chaptor 133 of a the Lawo of Sierra Leone (hereinafter referred to as the wee | Act) makou provision for'a Third Party vho svffers death y 4 or injury. aa 1 root of a voter vehicle accident, or nie {ip a dependant in the forucr eage,"to seck redress, if ie i Pe. necessary in the Courte of the land aginst the omer of | Sa a the vehicle and/or an.ingurance company. The provision 4 H 4 ae ig entitled "an Act to make provision against third party a bE Bs ee to offoct of tho arguiont on behalf of. the aetl of a Appellante/Dofendante 19 thit on & proper interpretation ; @ | a of Section 9 of the Act, the Respondent/Plaintare ohoma |” | Section 9 .nd therefore ought to be outside the scope of i 4 | = the policy under this Act and not entitled to the benstite ff} 4 | ee ariaing out of an indopendent right of action against the!) % | St AppeLianti:/Detondanta' Coapuny, contained in Section i1(1).ct" 1 7” 2 3/s 1!

3 es) :

| ho Act provides in Section 31) "that no person 7

H usa we, oF eanse,o% porns any other person to use ‘ ‘ q ; a motor vehicle unleos there in in force in relation to Mey iq the user of that motor vehiels by ouch porson or such ee mi _imourance or auch security in fuoyect of third pasty TB sctsin an conpinn vith te provintona of thin it ome Ht 4 ot snpones & criminil sanptinn for a gantravantién of ff Il this provision in order to imjross the imperative and Ba Hy comprehunaive charactor of it: opecific requironent. H oe Imperative conditions are also svt out in Seetion 7(1)(a) a 4 F and (b) of the Act. (a) Lrovides ‘that the insurer must ql a bo approved, by the Prenident ind (b), which 40 more ay i snootiatery rotewint tothe Susu wtetoe that, for meat id og purpise of thié Act,” the incuvaijes policy mgt “insure 2! HY i | 5 gach poraon or lasses of! persion as may bu spectfied in i i aod the’ policy 1m roapoct of sy L4sbélity wnten may be” al q iad : podity injury: to any person caused by or arising Gut of, Ae al a ‘the use of w-motor vehicle covered by the ‘policy,". This. ia Pa ts a otatutory mandatory condition and I think 4t 4a ea “a relevant to yolnt out hore tht tnpliodty te tav ) " i ; empowers the insurers to exercise a right of restricting a a the persons or classes of purvon they would cover. oy “ay La achieve the purpose of the Act there are certain funda~ a “Tl ag mentale necessary. hove ontlined are:- We motor vohicie “ i al |e se to be alo tho highiny without am anesrnig paiey’” (| 4 ceeethe NTT ee, eee NEESER ERE rerernnEneercnrer

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