Staco Insurance Company v Sea Coach Boat Company Ltd (CIV APP 30/2019) [2026] SLCA 2 (3 June 2026)

CIVAPP;30/2019 IN THE APPEAL COURT OF SIERRA LEONE (COMMERCIAL AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION’ 5 SEAR : i 4 et, a BETWEEN: .. eee er sabg , a STACO INSURANCE COMPANY (SL) LIMITED - APPELLANT 24 UPPER BROOK STREET FREETOWN AND SEACOACH BOAT COMPANY LIMITED - ~—- RESPONDENT 70A OFF SIR SAMUEL LEWIS ROAD ABERDEEN

Coram

Hon. Mr. Justice A. B. Halloway JSC - Presiding Hon. Mrs Justice F. B. Alhadi JSC - (JAas she then was) Hon. Mrs. Justice J. E. L. King JA Counsel: R. S. V. Wright Esq ~ for the Appellant €. Pabs-Garnon Esq. - for the Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS 3®° DAY OF JUNE 2026 court of Appeal Majority Judgment of Justices FB. Ahad JSC and LEA KingJA in Staco Insurance 1 Company v Sea Coach Boat Co. Ltd 3" Day of June 2026.

ALHADI_ JSC: On the 18" of April 2019 a Notice of Appeal was filed by the Appellant, Staco Insurance Company (SL) Limited against the judgment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Sengu Koroma JSC dated 15" April 2019 on the following grounds:

Ground a

That the Learned Trial Judge (LTJ) erred in law and misdirected himself when he concluded that the vessel MV Princess Caroline was insured by the Defendant at the time of the alleged loss.

PARTICULARS

When he said at page 7

Itis not in dispute that the vessel MV Caroline was insured by the Defendant on the 26” September, 2012.

Ground B

That the LTJ erred in law and misdirected himself by totally disregarding the terms of the Insurance Policy and the Institute Time Clauses which stated that the vessel must be seaworthy and must possess a periodic survey report before it can be validly covered by the insurance policy.

PARTICULARS

When he said at Page 7

Itis not in dispute that the vessel MV Caroline was insured by the Defendant on the 26" September, 2012. The final sinking for which the plaintiff is claiming total loss took place on the 3° October, 2012. There is no denying that the sinking would not have happened at that time had the events of the 26" September, 2012 not occurred. To my mind, they form a chain of events that cannot be separated from one another. It is my conclusion therefore that Court of Appeal Majority Judgment of Justices F.8.AlhadiJSC and JEL. King JAin Staco Insurance 2 ‘Company v Sea Coach Boat Co. Ltd 3 Day of June 2026.

the material time for determining whether the policy was valid is the 26" day of September, 2012. The policy was to expire on the 30" September, 2012.

Ground C

That the LTJ erred in law and misdirected himself in failing to take consideration of the fact that, even assuming that the vessel was originally validly insured, the alleged loss occurred after the expiration of the original insurance policy and before renewal of the insurance policy and that the vessel was not covered by the insurance policy at the time of the alleged loss.

PARTICULARS

When he said at page 7

Itis not in dispute that the vessel MV Caroline was insured by the Defendant on the 26" September 2012. The final sinking for which the plaintiff is claiming total loss took place on the 3" October, 2012. There is no denying that the sinking would not have happened at that time had the events of the 26" September, 2012 not occurred. To my mind, they form a chain of events that cannot be separated from one another. It is my conclusion therefore that the material time for determining whether the policy was valid is the 26" day of September, 2012. The policy was to expire on the 30" September, 2012.

Ground D

That the LTJ erred in law and misdirected himself by misapplying or totally failing to apply the definition of perils of the sea to the facts of the case when, in the absence of any evidence that the MV Princess Caroline was sea worthy, he held that the definition of perils of the sea in Black's Law Dictionary 6" edition covers Article 6.1.1 of the Insurance Policy, thus suggesting that loss was caused by a peril of the sea.

PARTICULARS

When he said at page 8

Court of Appeal Majority udgment of Justices F.8, AlhadlJSC and JL King Ain Staco Insurance 3 Company v Sea Coach Boat Co. itd 3 Day of June 2026.

In analysing these submissions, | must first of all state clearly that the definitions’ of perils of the sea given by Black's Law Dictionary 6” edition represents the common law position regarding Perils of the Sea which | shall adopt here. To the extent of that definition, Article 6.1.1 of the Insurance Policy covered loss referred to in that definition.

Ground E

That the LTJ erred in law and misdirected himself when in the total absence of any evidence to the effect, he relied on and accepted the narrative from the expert witness, whose neutrality had clearly been discredited, that the Princess Caroline was caught in a storm and the waves rose to 1-1 % meters which forced the vessel to loss mooring lines and drifted towards Man of War Bay, when in fact the expert's entire evidence was hearsay and was established as such in the course of cross-examination.

PARTICULARS

When he said at page 9

In resolving this issue, | shall again refer to the only expert evidence in this case Exhibit “A”.

In exhibit “A”, the expert described the events of the 26" September 2012. He stated that the Princess Caroline moved at its position at Cape Sierra Light House, was caught in a storm arising within few minutes and without any warnings the waves rose to 1-1 % meters and a storm from North to East, forced the vessel to loss the mooring lines and it drifted towards Man of War Bay.

J accept the analysis of PW 1 in Exhibit ‘A” and hold that there is no evidence of self inflicted damage to something of negligence.

Court of Appeal Majority Judgment of Justices F.8 Ahad JSC and JE. King JAin taco insurance 4 Company v Sea Coach Boat Co. Ltd 3 Day of lune 2026.

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