VANGUARD ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. J. M. ADDO & SONS LTD.
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- P.K. GYAESAYOR, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- F. G. KORBIEH, J.A.
- S. DZAMEFE, J.A
Areas of Law
- Insurance Law
- Evidence Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal by the defendant was dismissed as the trial court's judgment was supported by the evidence. The plaintiff was able to prove the theft and forcible entry, and there was no breach of the notification clause. The general damages awarded to the plaintiff were justified, and the costs were not excessive.
F.G.KORBIEH, J.A.
The facts leading to the suit and the judgment from which this appeal emanates are relatively simply. The protagonists in this case entered into a contractual relationship whereby the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter only referred to as the plaintiff) took out an Assets All Risks Insurance Policy with the defendant/appellant (hereinafter only referred to as the defendant). The plaintiff was at all material times a limited liability company engaged in the business of importation, distribution and sale of pharmaceutical products whilst the defendant was a limited liability company engaged in the business of insurance and related activities. On the 11/11/2008, the plaintiff took out the insurance policy in respect of the plaintiff’s assets including its warehouse and the products contained therein. The warehouse in question was located at Plot No. 17, Section 48, North Kaneshie, Accra and the products included a quantity of Wormplex 400 Albendazole tablets. It was the practice of the plaintiff to do stock-taking of its products every six months and it carried out such an exercise on the 31/12/2009. It was during this stock-taking that the plaintiff detected that 514 cartons of Wormplex 400 Albendazole tablets valued at GHC514,000.00 were missing from the warehouse. The plaintiff lodged a complaint with the police who, after several months of investigations, revealed that the plaintiff’s warehouse had been broken into and the products stolen. In or around January, 2010 the plaintiff’s insurance brokers made an oral report of the lost items to the defendant and followed up with a written report on the 2/2/2010. On the basis of the lost items, the plaintiff lodged a claim with the defendant but the latter repudiated liability, alleging that its own investigations had revealed that there had been no forcible entry or exit from the premises. After some more attempts on the part of the plaintiff to persuade the defendant to accept liability for the claim failed, the plaintiff sued the defendant claiming the cost of the lost items, interest thereon, aggravated damages for breach of contract, any other reliefs the court deemed fit and costs of the action. The defendant’s pleading in support of its denial of liability was to the effect that the plaintiff would be put to strict proof of most of its material allegations of fact and further that it was impossible for theft through forcible entry to occur at the plaintiff’s warehouse which was not disc