EXPOM GHANA LIMITED vs. VANGUARD ASSUARANCE CO. LTD. [2023]DLSC15003

Date	2023-02-15
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J7/19/2023
Citation No.	[2023]DLSC15003

YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING)

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

PWAMANG JSC

PROF. KOTEY JSC

OWUSU (MS.) JSC

AMADU JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

GEORGE ANKOMA MENSAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.

MRS. ANNA FORDJOUR ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT

[2023]DLSC15003
																																						<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" >&nbsp;

EXPOM
GHANA LIMITED&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>

vs.<o:p></o:p>

<a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>VANGUARD ASSUARANCE CO. LTD.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>

CIVIL MOTION NO. J7/19/2023&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:
15TH&nbsp;&nbsp;FEBRUARY 2023&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>

COUNSEL <o:p></o:p>

GEORGE
ANKOMA MENSAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

MRS. ANNA FORDJOUR ESQ. FOR THE
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>

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

YEBOAH
CJ (PRESIDING), BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, PWAMANG JSC, PROF. KOTEY JSC, OWUSU (MS.)
JSC, AMADU JSC, PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>

&nbsp;

PWAMANG
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>

The grounds upon which this application for review
has been brought as set out in the statement of case of the Applicant and
argued in court are that;<o:p></o:p>

a)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The majority
failed to consider the evidence in the record which showed that the respondent
at the trial failed to prove the value of the materials destroyed by the fire,

b)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The majority
failed to exclude from the quantum of damages awarded for materials destroyed,
the quantity of materials that were found in the Thonket case to have been
fermented or expired at the time of the fire,

c)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The majority
failed to interpret the Watchman’s warranty clause in the contract that was
held by them to be in force at the time of the fire, and

d)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The award of
€400,000.00 as cost of removal of debris from the fire was a basic and
fundamental error since the contract of insurance in force at the time of the
fire did not cover the cost of removal of debris.<o:p></o:p>

We have listened to the lawyers of the parties and
read closely the processes filed in this application for review and we have
formed the opinion, that apart from ground (d) stated above, the rest of the
grounds are inviting us to re-hear the appeal but a review is not an appeal. <o:p></o:p>

At Ground (d) the applicant alleges that the court
made an inadvertent slip in making an award outside the terms of the insurance
contract the parties entered into. Accordingly, we have taken a look at the
contract documents that both parties are agreed were what they signed. We have
</main>