Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
September 14, 1972
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.
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:
[p.30]
“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.
(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.”
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.
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.
All fines paid to be refunded.
DECISION
Appeal allowed.
Appellant acquitted and discharged.
S. E. K.
AI Generated Summary
Francois J allowed the appeal of an accused convicted on two counts related to motor vehicle insurance and regulatory offences concerning vehicle No. VR 2547. Reopening the hearing and taking evidence, the judge concluded that the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1958 does not create an offence based on an "unnamed driver" where a comprehensive policy is in force, a position confirmed by the State Insurance Corporation. He emphasized that insurer practices limiting cover to named drivers are commercial, not statutory. Quoting Section 3(1)–(2), he found statutory compliance and ruled the first count under "Regulation 18 (1) IV of R.T.R. 1970" could not succeed because that section does not create an offence, a point conceded by counsel for the Republic. The court set aside the convictions, sentences, and disqualification order, entered a verdict of acquittal and discharge, and ordered a refund of fines.