EQUITY ASSURANCE v. PALMERS GREEN INTERNATIONAL LTD.
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- KUSI-APPIAH, J.A
- HONYENUGA ,J.A
- ADJEI, J.A
Areas of Law
- Evidence Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Defendant appealed the High Court's decision which favored the Plaintiff in recovering unpaid premiums for insurance policies allegedly renewed automatically. The appellate court evaluated evidence from both parties, including exhibits proving the existence of business transactions beyond the initial term. The Court found Plaintiff's evidence more probable and upheld the High Court's decision, aligning with the legal standards for civil cases where the burden of proof lies on the balance of probabilities. Additionally, the appeal on the grounds of improper fact finding and law application by the trial court was dismissed, affirming the original judgment.
ADJEI, J.A.
This Defendant/Appellant dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, Accra delivered on 24th March, 2016 filed an appeal against same to this Court on 17th May, 2016.For the purposes of this appeal, the Defendant/Appellant shall be referred to as Defendant and the Plaintiff/Respondent as Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant to recover the sum of USD 64,309.68 and 7,508.56 Euro being premium due on six different insurance policies underwritten by the Plaintiff for the Defendant which the Defendant has refused to pay despite repeated demands.
The trial High Court Judge in her judgment delivered on 24th March, 2016 entered judgment for the Plaintiff on the endorsement on the writ.
The basis for the Plaintiff’s claim was that by the practice between it and the Defendant, it automatically renewed the insurance policies for its private comprehensive Motor Policy and the Defendant was required to honour its part by paying for the policies renewed for its benefit.
The Defendant’s position is that insurance policy has its own practice and regulation and where an insurance policy expires and renewed, the cost of the policy shall be paid within ninety days from the date of renewal else it shall lapse.
The trial High Court Judge believed the version of the Plaintiff on the balance of preponderance of probabilities and entered judgment for the Plaintiff.
The following were the grounds of appeal filed by the Defendant against the judgment:
“a. The whole judgment is against the weight of evidence.
b. The judge erred when she concluded and indeed same informed her decision, that the Defendant did not deny paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim in his Defence when indeed and in fat paragraph 1 of the Defence has expressly stated that unless admitted, any fact contained in the Statement of Defence is denied seriatim.
c. The court erred when it concluded that the Appellants’ request for a bid bond is conclusive of the fact that the parties transacted business beyond 2011 and hence the Appellant is liable to the claim of the Respondent.
d. The Judge erred when she held that the Appellant is liable to the claim of UDS$ 64,309.68 and for 7,508.56 when same was never proven by the Respondent.
e. The learned Judge erred when she held that goodwill amongst the parties varied the express terms in the insurance policy that binds the parties.
f. The learned trial Judge with all due respect erred when she failed to adequately consider the case of t