JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.
This action was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants under section 10 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1958 (No. 42 of 1958), to recover damages awarded her in a running down action previously brought against the alleged assured of the defendants (hereinafter referred to as the tortfeasor). Though a number of issues were set down for trial, it was narrowed by consent to the single issue, namely, whether the policy or certificate allegedly issued by the defendants covered the tortfeasor and consequently made the defendants liable to the plaintiff to satisfy the damages awarded her.
The facts of this case are that the tortfeasor obtained a certificate of insurance through the plaintiff's first witness, Isaac Newton Yaw Ayiku. The vehicle involved was ER 1354. The sum paid for insuring it was ¢120.00; and the certificate in respect of the vehicle was numbered 240296. The plaintiff's first witness claimed that he was given nothing besides the certificate but was told that the policy would be subsequently posted to him. The receipt for the sum paid was however not produced; nor was it explained why the plaintiff's first witness an illiterate, who had previously not conducted any business with the defendants, should have been selected to effect this transaction in preference to the tortfeasor herself or her driver. This witness also exposed his ignorance of insurance procedure when he claimed acquaintance with the methods adopted by the Royal Exchange Assurance which required no forms to be filled before a policy was issued.
Apart from putting in exhibit A the certificate already referred to, exhibit B a judgment awarding damages against the tortfeasor, and [p.25] exhibit C a judgment of the magistrate's court acquitting the tortfeasor's driver on the charge of driving without a current certificate of insurance, the only other evidence proffered by the plaintiff was that of her second witness, a police officer, who had investigated the issuing of exhibit A. His evidence shows that the system of work of the defendants leaves much to be desired; but beside that, it does not advance the plaintiff's case very far.
The defendants denied insuring vehicle No. ER 1354; and denied insuring Aurelia A. Akoto the tortfeasor. The defendants also denied issuing certificate No. 240296 and claimed that the corresponding policy C.V. 257824 was issued to one Zacharia Musa on 31 October 1967. The certificate in respect
