ASUNKE vs. JAJA AND ANOTHER [1968]DLHC10252

Date	1968-11-07
Suit No.	G L R 993 – 1001
Citation No.	[1968]DLHC10252

EDUSEI J.

E. O. APPIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

J. ALLOTEI-COFIE FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANT-APPLICANT.

[1968]DLHC10252
																																						<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" >ASUNKE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JAJA AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, TAMALE]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">G L
R 993 – 1001&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 7TH NOVEMBER, 1968<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>E. O. APPIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

J. ALLOTEI-COFIE FOR
THE FIRST DEFENDANT-APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;EDUSEI
J.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On 29 April 1968, the plaintiff obtained
judgment against the defendants in a running-down action and was awarded
damages of N¢5,684.00 together with N¢350.00 costs.&nbsp; The defendants have appealed against the
judgment, and on 14 May 1968, the court on the application of the first
defendant granted a stay of execution as to the sum of N¢2,250.00 only.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The State Insurance Corporation, the insurers
of the first defendant's vehicle, after the judgment entered into negotiations
for settlement, and it was agreed that the sum of N¢3,350.00 should be paid by
them to the plaintiff in full settlement of the judgment debt and costs.&nbsp; The payment of the settled sum would be in
further consideration of the abandoning of the appeal filed by the
defendants.&nbsp; The settled figure of
N¢3,350.00 has not been paid, and in the meantime the plaintiff, relying on her
judgment, proceeded to execution in respect of the amount which was not
affected by the stay of execution granted on 14 May 1968.&nbsp; The first defendant's vehicle No. GF 673
[p.995] was thus attached on or about 30 August 1968. The first defendant
therefore brought this instant application praying for a stay of execution and
also asking for the release of his vehicle.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;There are two matters upon which the first
defendant-applicant relies for a stay of execution.&nbsp; Firstly, it was argued on his behalf that the
parties have agreed on the figure of N¢3,350.00 in full settlement and a discharge
certificate had been signed by the plaintiff; secondly, the plaintiff has not
produced a tax clearance certificate in terms of the Income Tax Decree, 1966
(N.L.C.D,. 78), para. 81A (3) as inserted by paragraph 4 (1) (a) of Income Tax
(Amendment) Decree, 1968 (N.L.C.D. 265), and so payment has not been made to
the plaintiff.&nbsp; Both counsel admit that
though a discharge certificate had been signed by the plaintiff actual payment
has not been made to her in terms expressed in the discharge certificate
(exhibit A).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I shall deal with the more important matter
first and it is this: Whether the plaintiff should produce a tax clearance
certificate before payment of the N¢3,350.00 is made to her by the State
Insurance Corporation. The determination of this question calls for the construction
of N.L.C.D. 78, para. 81A (3) as inserted by paragraph 4 (1) (a) of the Income
Tax (Amendment) Decree, 1968 (N.L.C.D. 265).&nbsp;
The said section is couched in these words:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"81 A. (3) No insurance company shall
pay any money in respect of any claim made under any policy issued by that
company unless the person to whom the money is payable under the policy
produces to the company a tax clearance certificate issued in respect of
himself and valid for the year of assessment in which the money is to be paid."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The burden of the first defendant's complaint
is that without the production of a tax clearance certificate by the plaintiff
the State Insurance Corporation are precluded from making payment to her.&nbsp; Counsel for the plaintiff does not accept the
interpretation placed on the paragraph in question by the first defendant's
counsel.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is an elementary principle of construction
of statutes that the words used therein must be given their ordinary meaning,
and it is only when the words so used are not clear that resort is made to the
rules governing interpretation of statutes, and Decrees of the National
Liberation Council in my view for all practical purposes come under the rubric
of "statutes." Thus Bayley J. in R. v. Ramsgate (Inhabitants) (1827)
6 B. &amp; C. 712 at p. 715 said: "It is very desirable in all cases to
adhere to the words of an Act of Parliament, giving to them that sense which is
their natural import in the order in which they are placed." In 132 Lord
Warrington of Clyffe approved of this principle in Barrell v. Fordree [1932]
A.C. 676 at p. 682, H.L. when he stated [p.996] that, "the safer and more
correct course of dealing with a question of construction is to take the words
themselves and arrive if possible at their meaning without, in the first
instance, reference to cases."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I propose therefore, in my attempt at
construing paragraph 81A (3) of N.L.C.D. 78 as inserted by N.L.C.D. 265, para.
4 (1) (a) to adopt the course suggested by Lord Warrington of Clyffe.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is to be observed, however, that a
contract of insurance is an agreement between the insurance company and the
insured, and the rights and duties of the parties are contained in the policy
</main>