BEIDU vs. ZENITH ASSURANCE CO., LTD. [1979]DLHC1044

Date	1979-08-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1044

OSEI-HWERE J.

DAPAA FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

AGYEMANG FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1979]DLHC1044
																																						<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" >BEIDU<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ZENITH ASSURANCE CO., LTD.<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST] <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1980] GLR 499<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:
7 AUGUST 1979<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">

DAPAA FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>[The
court having reviewed the evidence and found for the plaintiff in his first
claim for ¢59,176 as judgment debt and costs against the defendants under
section 10 (1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1958 (No. 42
of 1958), here continued:] The plaintiff has also sued for four per cent
statutory interest on ¢59,176 as interest on the judgment debt and costs under
the Judgment Act, 1838 (1 &amp; 2 Vict., c. 110), from 20 January 1975 until
judgment of this action. He bases this claim on section 10 of the Motor
Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1958 (No. 42 of 1958), which permits “any
sums payable by virtue of any written law in respect of interest on that sum or
judgment” to be exacted by the third party against the insurers. Indeed, under
sections 17 and 18 of the Judgment Act, 1838 four per cent interest is allowed
on judgment from date of pronouncement in court, or if there is no
pronouncement, then from date of entry. Section 111 (1) of the Courts Act, 1971
(Act 372), indicates what Statutes of England, and to what extent, those
statutes shall continue to apply in Ghana as statutes of general application.
Although the Judgment Act, 1838 is excluded in the First Schedule of Act 372,
yet section 111 (8) particularly states:<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">“(8)
Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, the statutes of England
shall cease to apply in Ghana, except in so far as they may be applied by any
enactment for the time being in force and no statute of England shall be deemed
to be a statute of general application other than a statute referred to in this
section.”<o:p></o:p>(The
emphasis is mine.) Indeed, before the enactment of the Courts Act, 1971 (which
has impliedly repealed the applicability of the Judgment Act, 1838 which
hitherto was undoubtedly a statute of general application) section 10 of the
Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1958 permitted the application of
sections 17 and 18 of the Judgment Act, 1838 and, by implication, that Act was
incorporated into the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1958.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>What I
now have to consider is the effect of the implied repeal of the Judgment Act,
1838 on section 10 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1958.
This brings me face to face with the question of interpretation. Odgers on the
Construction of Deeds and Statutes (4th ed.), p. 256 has provided the answer
where it is stated that where the provisions of one statute are incorporated by
reference into a second statute and the first is repealed by a third statute,
the provisions incorporated into the second remain intact as the incorporated
provisions have become part of the second statute. In our own Interpretation
Act, 1960 (C.A. 4), the matter is settled by its section 6 (3) which provides:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“(3)
Where an enactment applies another enactment, whether with or without
modification, and the applied enactment is subsequently repealed or revoked it
shall continue to apply according to the terms of the enactment which applies
it, notwithstanding the repeal or revocation.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Nothing,
in my view, could be clearer than the interpretation provided above. Section
111 (8) of Act 372 seems to me even to fortify the contention that the Judgment
Act, 1838 may still be applied by section 10 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party
Insurance) Act, 1958 and any judgment which shows that interest is not exigible
was, to my mind, given per incuriam. It is for the above reasons that I also
give judgment to the plaintiff on his second claim as per the indorsement on
his writ. I award to the plaintiff ¢1,000 costs to cover his outlays.<o:p></o:p>

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