JEBEILE vs. NORWICH UNION FIRE INSURANCE SOCIETY LTD. [1964]DLSC1911

Date	1964-06-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1911

MILLS-ODOI JSC

ACOLATSE JSC

APALOO J.S.C.

J. B. QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE APPELLANTS.

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLSC1911
																																						<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" >JEBEILE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>NORWICH UNION FIRE INSURANCE SOCIETY LTD. <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 427<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:
29 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">

J. B. QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

MILLS-ODOI, ACOLATSE AND APALOO JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Accra, Akainyah J. (as he then
was) delivered on 9 July 1963. That judgment, awarded in favour of the
plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) sums of money which he claimed
were due to him from the appellant company (hereinafter called the appellants)
under two policies of insurance.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In order
to appreciate the argument advanced in this appeal, it is necessary to relate
the facts which are, fortunately, far from complex. The respondent is an ice
cream manufacturer and has a factory which is situated in house No. C 44/2,
Kwame Nkrumah Avenue, Accra. In that factory, he has his plant and machinery.
In order to provide against the risk of their destruction by fire, he took out
a policy of insurance with the appellants who, as their name implies, are an
insurance company. The latter were incorporated by an Act of Parliament in
England and have their head office in Norwich, England. Their letterhead shows
that in this country, their local head office is in Ghana Co-operative Bank
Buildings, Accra. The first policy of insurance taken out by the respondent was
dated 24 September 1959, but was expressed to be effective from 14 August 1959
to 14 August 1960. It was renewed in November 1960 for a period of one year.
The machinery insured was all set out in a schedule to the certificate of
insurance and it was insured for a total sum of £G21,500. On 30 September 1959
the respondent took out another policy of insurance with the appellants and by
this, the appellants agreed to indemnify him up to a maximum sum of £G800 in
respect of such miscellaneous expenses as he might incur for any period not
exceeding twelve months during which his business might be interrupted or
interfered with. This policy was also renewed on 15 November 1960 but was said
to be effective for one year from 1 November 1960.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 15
December 1960, while these two policies were current, fire broke out in the
respondent’s store. The only eye-witness account of this fire was given by the
respondent’s first witness by name police sergeant Samuel Kwami. He put the
time of the fire at about 9.35 p.m. He said it was a fairly big fire but was
brought under control in about twenty to twenty-five minutes. The fire was put
out by the fire brigade who apparently pumped into the store a large quantity
of water. Mr. Kwami said he found in the store six machines. They did not
appear to have been burnt but the store was left in ankle-deep of water.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The pith
of the respondent’s claim was that this fire wholly destroyed his plant and
machinery and he therefore submitted a claim to the company for total loss. The
respondent himself assessed the pre-accident value of the various machines.
Together with a stock of ice cream and bicycles which he alleged were damaged
by the fire, the respondent submitted a claim for an aggregate sum of £G16,300.
He also submitted a claim on the miscellaneous expenses policy. At the date
when the writ was issued, he claimed for four months at the rate of £G800 per
month. Twelve months had elapsed by the time the action was heard and he
accordingly amended his claim to cover the maximum insured period of twelve
months.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When the
respondent submitted his claim to the appellants, the latter caused two
companies, namely Hughes King (Ghana) Ltd. and G.M.P. Ltd. to examine the
machines and report. The former of the two companies examined the mechanical
part of the machines while the latter examined the electric motors and other
electrical installations. In due course both companies submitted reports to the
appellants. The substance of these reports was that the damage to either the
mechanical or electrical part of the machinery was infinitesimal. Both
companies considered that the damage could be put right in the paltry sums of
£G5 and £G1 10s. respectively. Accordingly, the appellants offered to indemnify
the respondent in the total sum of £G6 10s. The respondent declined to accept
this sum and promptly commenced proceedings. Pleadings were, as usual, filed
and thereafter, the respondent took out a summons for directions in which he
set out three issues. In view of the evidence, these issues were less than
inapt and I do not propose to recite them. When the case was almost at an end,
the appellants sought and were granted leave to amend paragraph five of the
statement of defence to accord with the attitude adopted by them. As amended,
paragraph fi</main>