CHOKOSI vs. THE REPUBLIC [1973]DLHC2372

Date	1973-09-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2372

FRANCOIS J.

W. T. DOKU FOR THE APPELLANT.

ADDO ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1973]DLHC2372
																																						<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" >CHOKOSI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<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 31<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:
14 SEPTEMBER 1972.<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">

W. T. DOKU, FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

ADDO, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.<o:p></o:p>On this
appeal coming before me, I re-opened the hearing and took evidence. It seemed
to me the legislature had not created an offence affecting an “unnamed driver”
where comprehensive insurance policy existed. This view was confirmed by the
representative of the State Insurance Corporation, the insurance of the vehicle
No. VR 2547 stated in the charge. Section 3 (1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicles
(Third Party Insurance) Act, 1958 (No. 42 of 1958), read as follows:<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">&nbsp;“3. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act
no person shall use, or cause or permit any other person to use, a motor
vehicle unless there is in force in relation to the user of that motor vehicle
by such person or such other person, as the case may be, such a policy of
insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with
the provisions of this Act. <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) Any
person acting in contravention of this section shall be liable on conviction to
a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to imprisonment for one year or to
both such fine and imprisonment and a person convicted of an offence under this
section shall be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It seems
it was purely on commercial grounds that the insurance companies began
restricting cover to named drivers even where comprehensive policies had been
taken. Although this system prevails in the United Kingdom, I have not had the
fortune to trace its inception from an inadequacy of relevant authority
available here. I can therefore not deal with the matter in depth as I had
hoped to do; despite this, it is apparent from the charge that no offence was
committed by the accused for which he should plead guilty and be sentenced.
There was in fact compliance with the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance)
Act, 1958 (No. 42 of 1958), and in the circumstances this appeal must succeed
on this count.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
count dealing with an offence under “Regulation 18 (1) IV of R.T.R. 1970”
cannot succeed simply because there is no offence under that section. This is
conceded by counsel for the Republic. In the net result this appeal succeeds.
The conviction and sentence on the two counts and the order of disqualification
with the consequential endorsement on the appellant’s licence are hereby set
aside. A verdict of acquittal and discharge is hereby entered for the
appellant.<o:p></o:p>All fines
paid to be refunded.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>