WADAD HADDAD FISHERIES vs. STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [1973]DLHC2213

Date	1973-03-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2213

ABBAN J.

I. AMOO-LAMPTEY (WITH HIM CARL E. QUIST) FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

H. P. SWANIKER FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1973]DLHC2213
																																						<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" >WADAD HADDAD FISHERIES <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&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;&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;[1973]
1 GLR 501<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
9 MARCH 1973.<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">

I. AMOO-LAMPTEY (WITH HIM CARL E. QUIST) FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

H. P. SWANIKER 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>By their
amended writ of summons the plaintiffs are claiming from the defendants the sum
of ¢15,810.00 as money due to them under a marine insurance policy, No. 01/43/00141/9,
dated 4 September 1969, and issued by the defendants in respect of the fishing
vessel Le Martian—T.F. 123. The plaintiffs are also claiming interest on this
amount at the rate of eleven per cent, calculated from September 1969, to the
date of judgment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs are the owners of the said vessel, and the vessel was insured with
the defendants against all risks. That is, “against losses and damages,
howsoever caused.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In their
paragraph (4) of the statement of claim, the plaintiffs alleged that “on or
about 20 September 1969, whilst the said fishing vessel was anchored at the
inner fishing harbour at Tema, it was discovered that the said vessel had
sunk.” The plaintiffs further alleged that the circumstances leading to the
loss of the vessel were covered by the terms of the policy. They therefore
contended that the sum of ¢15,810.00, for which the vessel was insured, had now
become due and payable. The defendants, however, refused to meet the demands of
the plaintiffs. Consequently, on 4 April 1970, the plaintiffs sued for this
amount on a specially endorsed writ. After the defendants had entered
appearance, the plaintiffs, on 30 April 1970, filed summons for judgment under
Order 14, r. 1 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N.
140A). The summons was heard, and on 7 May 1970, the defendants were granted
leave to defend.<o:p></o:p>The
substance of the defence, as appearing on the pleadings, is that the sinking of
the boat was due to the fault of the plaintiffs and “not due to high winds at
the harbour, and, in that respect, it was not a peril covered by the said
marine insurance policy.” The defendants, again, averred that at the time the
insurance was being effected the “plaintiffs wrongfully concealed from the
defendants material facts then known to the plaintiffs and unknown to the
defendants.” Particulars of the alleged concealment were given in paragraph (5)
(a) of the amended statement of defence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It will
be recalled that hearing of the case, on its merits, was completed on 19
January 1973, and the court adjourned it to 2 February for addresses. But
before that date, all sorts of amendments were filed by the parties. That is,
the plaintiffs, on 24 January filed notice to amend the endorsement on their
writ of summons. The defendants, on 30 January, filed notice to amend their
statement of defence. The defendants, again, on 1 February filed another notice
of amendment, together with motion on notice and an affidavit, giving reasons
why the defendants thought those amendments were necessary.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Because
of these amendments the court could not hear the addresses on the said 2
February. The case had to be adjourned to 7 February, for all the various
amendments to be considered.<o:p></o:p>On 7
February, after hearing the submissions of both counsel on the proposed
amendments, the court found them to be necessary and therefore all the
amendments were allowed, and the defendants were ordered to file a
comprehensive amended statement of defence. The case was further adjourned to
23 February for the addres</main>