WILLIAMS vs. NATIONAL & COLONIAL INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD. [1962]DLHC1749

Date	1962-04-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1749

OLLENNU J.

E. N. MOORE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

E. O. ASAFU-ADJAYE FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1962]DLHC1749
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">WILLIAMS <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">NATIONAL &amp; COLONIAL INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD. <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 289<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 24TH APRIL, 1962.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

E.
N. MOORE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

OLLENNU, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>A man who gave his name as John Kofi took from the
defendant-company an insurance policy on his life for £G15,000. The policy was
issued on the 27th November, 1959, and it is exhibit D. The said man had, on
the 24th August, 1959, made a will. The plaintiff is the sole beneficiary and
the sole executrix under the said will. It being represented to the High Court
that the said testator had died on the 10th April, 1960, the court on the 7th
June, 1960, granted probate of the said will to the plaintiff. That probate is
exhibit A. The plaintiff made claim upon the defendant-company for payment
under the said policy and upon their failure to meet the claim she instituted
this action claiming £G15,000 as benefit accruing to her in terms of the said
policy.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defence in short is that John Kofi is not dead, and that if a
John Kofi is dead, he was not the assured. In short the defence put the
plaintiff to prove strictly that the assured John Kofi is dead. The question
the court is therefore called upon to answer is: Is John Kofi dead?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel for both sides referred the court to Halsbury’s Laws of
England (3rd ed.) Vol.15, pages 344—346, paras. 623—625, dealing with
presumptions of life and death. The principle is briefly stated in paragraph
623 as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“There is no presumption of law by which the fact that a
particular person was alive on a given date can be established, it being in
every case a question of fact for the jury or judge sitting alone ...<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Where no statute lays down an applicable rule, the issue whether a
person is dead generally speaking is one of fact and not subject to presumption
of law. To this there is one exception, namely, that, if there is no acceptable
affirmative evidence that a person was alive at some time during a continuous
period of seven years or more, then, if it can be proved that there are persons
who would be likely to have heard of him over the period if he were alive, that
those persons have not heard of him, and (it seems) that all due enquiries have
been made appropriate to the circumstances, there arises a legal presumption
that he is dead.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his speech delivered in Prudential Assurance Co. v. Edmonds1(1)
Lord Blackburn, discussing the presumption of death, said:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“in order to raise a presumption that a man is dead from his not
having been heard of for seven years, you must inquire among those who, if he
was alive, would be likely to hear of him, and see whether or not there has
been such an absence of hearing of him as would raise the presumption that he
was dead.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>See also Chard v. Chard (otherwise Northcott).2(2) That
presumption of death upon absence for seven or more years has no relevance to
this case. We have had to refer to it only as providing a guide in determining
the circumstances under which absence generally could be a proper basis for
presumption of death, and the nature and extent of enquiries which when made
for a person missing would be sufficient to raise a presumption that he is
dead.<o:p></o:p><span</main>