GH - SASU v. WHITE CROSS INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGMENT OF VAN LARE J.A.

Van Lare, J.A. delivered the judgment of the court:

The plaintiff in this case in effect claims to be indemnified by the defendant company under the terms of the insurance policy by which the defendant company were the insurers of the plaintiff's motor vehicle. When the motor vehicle in question was overturned as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism it was taken on the instructions of the defendant company to their agents, C.F.A.O. Motor Workshop, Accra, for repairs. The defendant company, however, later refused to complete the repairs upon which they had started, or to acknowledge any liability under the policy, on the ground that the defect which caused the accident and resulting damage was due to a failure on the part of the plaintiff to maintain the vehicle in efficient condition. The plaintiff, maintaining that he had properly maintained the vehicle in efficient condition, instituted this action.

He appears to quantify his damages as being the full insured value of the vehicle, that is £855, the full replacement value thereof. This clearly in our opinion cannot be the amount which the plaintiff can claim in law under a policy which indemnifies him against loss or damage, because it is clear on the evidence that the vehicle is part-worn, and had been involved in an earlier accident some six months before the accident which gave rise to the present claim. The damages as claimed fail to take into consideration the element of depreciation due to normal wear and tear.

The defence, as we have already said, was that under the exception contained in paragraph five of the conditions of the policy the defendant company's liability was excluded by reason of the plaintiff's failure to maintain the vehicle in efficient condition. To resist liability successfully the onus was on the defendant company to establish satisfactorily that the plaintiff did not in fact maintain the vehicle in efficient condition.

On the evidence as a whole we are of the opinion that the defendant company cannot be deemed to have discharged their burden satisfactorily. The facts proved (and it is common ground) that the cause of the accident [p.6] was a disconnected ball-joint at the steering drop arm, due to a nut on it having gradually worked loose, and in the process having stripped the thread on the drop arm, thereby putting the vehicle out of control. This is, in fact, what the learned trial judge found, and this finding has only to be looked

JUDGMENT OF VAN LARE J.A.

Van Lare, J.A. delivered the judgment of the court:

SASU v. WHITE CROSS INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Areas of Law

JUDGMENT