NORWICH UNION FIRE INSURANCE SOCIETY LTD. vs. TABBICA AND SONS [1967]DLHC1517

Date	1967-04-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLHC1517

EDUSEI J.

POBEE-ORLEANS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

KOI-LARBI FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1967]DLHC1517
																																						<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" >NORWICH UNION FIRE INSURANCE SOCIETY LTD. <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>TABBICA AND SONS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 226<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:
14 APRIL 1967.<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">

POBEE-ORLEANS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

KOI-LARBI FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>In this
case both counsel, Messrs. Pobee-Orleans and Koi-Larbi agreed that the facts
were not in dispute and that the whole case turned on legal arguments.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 26
February 1962, the defendants filled in a proposal form exhibit A with a view
to insuring their Bedford lorry No. AD 9278 with the plaintiff insurance
society. Prior to the filling in of the proposal form (exhibit A) the
defendants had entered into a hire-purchase agreement with one A. K. Diaba of
Kajebi on 20 February 1962. This hire-purchase agreement was exhibit C.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs instituted this action on 2 July 1963, to avoid the policy of
insurance between themselves and the defendants on the ground that (a) the
defendants, on entering into the hire-purchase agreement with A. K. Diaba, had
no insurable interest and (b) the policy of insurance was obtained by the
defendants by the non-disclosure of a material fact or in the alternative by a
representation of fact which was false in a material particular.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
necessary at this stage to determine whether the defendants had any insurable
interest in the Bedford lorry No. AD 9278 to enable them to insure it. This
question calls for a decision of the legal position of the defendants in
respect of the hire-purchase agreement (exhibit C) and to determine such legal
position of the defendants I have to consider the incidents of a hire-purchase
agreement. In Dustan’s Law of Hire-Purchase (4th ed.) at p. 1 appears the
definition of hire-purchase agreement:<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">“A
`Hire-Purchase agreement’ is a phrase used to denote a class of contracts the
general characteristics of which are:- <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">(1) The
delivery of goods to the hirer who obtains possession thereof; <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">(2) The
property in the goods remains in the owner and <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">(3) The
hirer agrees to pay the purchase price thereof by instalments, and the owner
agrees to transfer the property in the goods to the hirer on completion of the
payment.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>For the
owner of goods of a hire-purchase agreement to have an insurable interest the
guiding principle has been that such interest must be an enforceable one: see
Preston and Colinvaux on the Law of Insurance (2nd ed.) at p. 38. It follows
therefore that the defendants, as owners of Bedford lorry No. AD 9278 on 26
February 1962, had an insurable interest in the said lorry. Ground (a) for
avoiding the contract of insurance has been disposed of by my finding that the
defendants at the time of filling in exhibit A, the proposal form, had an
insurable interest in the lorry No. AD 9278.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It becomes
necessary for this court to consider whether or not there was a non-disclosure
of material fact. In the proposal form (ex</main>