VANGUARD ASSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. JULIANA DARKO [2015]DLCA8332

Date	2015-05-07
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/66/2014
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8332

P.K. GYAESAYOR J.A. (PRESIDING)

F. G. KORBIEH J.A.

S. DZAMEFE J.A.

A. BOAKYE FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

EMMAUEL AMOFA FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2015]DLCA8332
																																						<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" >VANGUARD ASSURANCE CO. LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JULIANA
DARKO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/66/2014&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; &nbsp;DATE: 7TH MAY, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>A. BOAKYE FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

EMMAUEL AMOFA FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

P.K. GYAESAYOR J.A.
(PRESIDING), F. G. KORBIEH J.A., S. DZAMEFE J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div>F.G.KORBIEH,
J.A. <o:p></o:p>The facts leading to the
suit and the judgment from which this appeal emanates are relatively simply.
The protagonists in this case entered into a contractual relationship whereby
the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter only referred to as the plaintiff) took
out an Assets All Risks Insurance Policy with the defendant/appellant
(hereinafter only referred to as the defendant). The plaintiff was at all
material times a limited liability company engaged in the business of
importation, distribution and sale of pharmaceutical products whilst the
defendant was a limited liability company engaged in the business of insurance
and related activities. On the 11/11/2008, the plaintiff took out the insurance
policy in respect of the plaintiff’s assets including its warehouse and the
products contained therein. The warehouse in question was located at Plot No.
17, Section 48, North Kaneshie, Accra and the products included a quantity of Wormplex 400 Albendazole tablets. It was
the practice of the plaintiff to do stock-taking of its products every six
months and it carried out such an exercise on the 31/12/2009. It was during
this stock-taking that the plaintiff detected that 514 cartons of Wormplex 400 Albendazole tablets valued
at GHC514,000.00 were missing from the warehouse. The plaintiff lodged a
complaint with the police who, after several months of investigations, revealed
that the plaintiff’s warehouse had been broken into and the products stolen. In
or around January, 2010 the plaintiff’s insurance brokers made an oral report
of the lost items to the defendant and followed up with a written report on the
2/2/2010. On the basis of the lost items, the plaintiff lodged a claim with the
defendant but the latter repudiated liability, alleging that its own
investigations had revealed that there had been no forcible entry or exit from
the premises. After some more attempts on the part of the plaintiff to persuade
the defendant to accept liability for the claim failed, the plaintiff sued the
defendant claiming the cost of the lost items, interest thereon, aggravated
damages for breach of contract, any other reliefs the court deemed fit and
costs of the action. The defendant’s pleading in support of its denial of
liability was to the effect that the plaintiff would be put to strict proof of
most of its material allegations of fact and further that it was impossible for
theft through forcible entry to occur at the plaintiff’s warehouse which was
not discovered until more than eight months later. The defendant also pleaded
that it had repudiated liability in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the policy taken out by the plaintiff. The case went to trial and in its
judgment the trial court upheld the claim of the plaintiff and accordingly
granted most of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff. In her judgment, the
learned trial judge found as a fact that the plaintiff had imported 665 cartons
of Wormplex 400 Albendazole tablets which were stored in the plaintiff’s
warehouse. She also held that the exclusion clause in the policy document did
not apply to the plaintiff’s case as the clause did not serve the commercial
purpose for taking out the policy. She found as a fact that the plaintiff had
taken reasonable precaution to prevent the loss by the fact that it provided
the necessary security to the premises. She
again found as a fact that the entry into the premises of the plaintiff by a
person or persons who had drilled holes into the locks of the doors of the
warehouse was not only forcible and violent but was also unlawful. She further found that the repudiation
of liability by the defendant was wrongful. &nbsp;It is this judgment that the defendant has
appealed against on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
judgment is against the weight of the evidence placed before the court.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
trial judge failed to consider and properly evaluate the case of the
defendant/appellant.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<</main>