JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.
The plaintiff was injured in an accident on 24 June 1965, involving vehicle No. CR 924 in respect of which there was a policy of insurance against third party risks by the defendant insurance company. In view of the injuries sustained by her, the plaintiff sued the owner of the vehicle, Kojo Arku and also the driver of the [p.400] vehicle at the material time of the accident, Braima Salaga, and the High Court sitting at Cape Coast awarded the plaintiff N¢10,000.00 damages with N¢200.00 costs against the owner and the driver of the vehicle.
The plaintiff thereafter insisted upon payment to her by the present defendants who were the insurers of the vehicle at the material time by virtue of section 10 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1958 (No. 42 of 1958). The defendants have refused to pay the judgment debt and costs on the ground that the third party insurance policy in force at the time of the accident restricted the driving of the vehicle No. CR 924 to Kojo Arku only, and no other person was permitted under the policy to drive the vehicle. In reply the plaintiff contended that there was no such restriction and even if there was, the restriction could not relieve the defendants of their obligation to satisfy the judgment debt.
The issues set down for the trial were as follows:
(1) Whether the policy in question restricted the driving of lorry No. CR 924 to Kojo Arku.
(2) Whether by the terms of the policy in question the defendants are entitled not to satisfy the judgment debt against their insured.
(3) Whether or not the defendants are liable to satisfy the judgment debt the subject-matter of this suit.
By consent and by agreement of both learned counsel for the parties, certain documents were tendered by the defendants through their representative, the defendants' first witness, the only witness who gave oral evidence. I shall deal with the documents in some chronological order. Exhibit A is the original proposal form submitted by Kojo Arku on 28 October 1963 in respect of vehicle No. CR 924. It is obvious from exhibit A that Kojo Arku was not the owner of the vehicle in view of the answer given to question (5) in the proposal form. The answer to question (10) was that the vehicle would be driven by Kojo Arku the proposer and not by a paid driver. However, after the proposal form had been accepted by the defendants, an original insurance policy exhibit 1 was issued to Kojo Arku. In exhibit 1 the limitation
