SALAMI vs. STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [1964]DLHC1951

Date	1964-06-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLHC1951

SOWAH J.

JOE APPIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

S. M. BOISON FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1964]DLHC1951
																																						<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" >SALAMI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 377<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
12TH JUNE, 1964.<o:p></o:p>

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

JOE APPIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

S. M. BOISON FOR THE DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

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

SOWAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff on 9 January 1963 filled in a proposal form for the insurance of his
goods in his wholesale warehouse on plot 7, South Zongo, Kumasi. The answers to
the questions on the proposal form were clearly stated to be the basis of the
contract and the same were incorporated in the policy, number BB 325028, dated
9 January 1963.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
night of 6 March 1963, barely two months after the contract of insurance had
been entered into, it was alleged that thieves broke into the assured’s
premises and removed large quantities of cotton material. The thieves must have
been on the premises for several hours, and must have carried the goods away in
a vehicle. It is of interest to note that no one on the premises heard anything
of the burglary, though part of the premises were occupied by tenants and the police
were not able to find any finger prints. The police however found that the lock
was broken.<o:p></o:p>Amongst
the questions on the proposal form were the following:<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">“2c. If
not will any night watchman be employed or other special means of protection
taken? Answer: Yes night watchman . . . 6a. Are stocks and sales books kept?
Answer: Yes. 6b. How frequently are they written up? Answer: Daily . . . 8c.
Has such proposal or renewal ever been declined, withdrawn or subject to
increased rate or special condition? Answer: No.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants alleged that the answers to these questions were false and amounted
to misrepresentation or misstatements or that they were such breaches of the
conditions and warranties as to entitle them to repudiate the claim.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Dealing
first with the answer to question 8c I consider that the answer given by the
plaintiff was not a misstatement. He stated that no proposal form of his has
ever been declined or withdrawn at the time of renewal. Before giving this
answer the plaintiff had stated in the proposal form that Norwich Union were
his previous insurers and also that he had once claimed for a burglary upon the
said insurance company. If I had come to the conclusion that the answer to
question 8c is incorrect I would have held that the answers were not of such
materiality as would have affected the contract of insurance. He had given
enough material to the defendant corporation which should have put it on its
inquiry especially when he disclosed that he is a person prone to being
burgled.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The more
important considerations were his answers to questions 2c, 6a and 6b. He had
informed the defendant corporation that he would be employing a night watchman
to watch the premises. Two months after taking the policy he had not employed a
night watchman and there was no night watchman on the premises the night that
he was burgled. Further, the insured also warranted as follows: “It is
warranted by the insured that all burglary precautions are in force whenever
the premises are without occupant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The plaintiff
stipulated in the proposal form that he kept his accounts daily. After the
burglary the accountants of the defendant corporation discovered that the
plaintiff’s accounts h</main>