JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.A.
Apaloo J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. After hearing argument on 2 May 1967, we dismissed the appeal in this suit and indicated that we would set out our reasons later on. This we now proceed to do.
The appellant, who described himself as a trader, was in January 1963, minded of insuring his stock-in-trade in his wholesale premises situate at ZE 1 and 2 Plot 7, South Zongo, Kumasi. Accordingly, on 9 January of that year, he filled a printed proposal form of the defendant corporation. The answers to the questions on the proposal form were stated to be the basis of the contract and were said to be incorporated in any contract eventually entered into between the appellant and the corporation. One of the questions to which the appellant gave an affirmative answer in the proposal form was, whether a night watchman would be employed at the premises sought to be insured. On the basis of the answers, the corporation issued in favour of the appellant, a policy of insurance and in consideration of the premium, insured the appellant's stock-in-trade in the aforesaid wholesale against burglary in the sum of £G3,000.
The appellant claimed that on 6 March 1963, the insured premises were broken into and goods valued £G2,117 odd were stolen. He therefore claimed to be indemnified in this sum by the corporation. The latter addressed to the appellant, a letter dated 6 May 1963 and repudiated the claim on the ground that the appellant committed breaches of two essential conditions of the policy. These were, first that no night watchman was employed at the premises and secondly, that the appellant's books of account were not written up daily. The [p.444] appellant then invoked the arbitration clause in the policy and sought to have the difference between himself and the corporation resolved at an arbitration. The latter declined to submit to arbitration and the appellant being left with no alternative, on 13 November 1963, issued in the High Court, Kumasi, a writ claiming to be indemnified in the said sum of £G2,117.
At the trial (reported in [1964] G.L.R. 377), there was practically no dispute on the facts although the learned trial judge (Sowah J.), seemed somewhat sceptical about the genuineness of the burglary. On this, the judge, inter alia, observed at p. 378:
"The thieves must have been on the premises for several hours, and must have carried the goods away in a vehicle. It is of interest to note that no one on the premises he
