Duvat & Anor V. Louis Orcel (1931)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Practice—Appeal—Date of Fa* of-Motion—Date of Application– judicature Act, 187k section 25 (6)—Assignsund of Right of Actiow—No Notice to lhattoc—Negligence.–Common Carrier– Act of God—Onus 4 Pro4
Facts
A motor car belonging to one Huchard was lost in the River Gambia owing to the capsizing of a float on which it was ‘ ferried across. Huchard sued the defendant, the proprietor of the ferry, for .
After action brought Hucbard assigned Ids right of action to the plaintiffs, but gave no nodes of the assignment to the defendant.
The Court below dealt with the case on the assumption that the defendant was a common carrier, and gave judgment in his favour on the ground that the loss of the car was due to an Act of God. = The plaintiffs appealed.
Held
On a preliminary objection, the Court of Appeal held that the date on which motion kw conditional lave- sipped is-Media to betaken as tbe date ed application for leave to appeal, even though the motion *totes the application will be beard on a later date.
The judgment of the Court below was upheld on the ground”—
(I) That them was no proof Ilya the- defendant was acarrier and
that the onus of proving.seat ea the plaintiffs.
- That, even it it was assumed–that tlefendent was a common canier, them was evidence to show thrit the loss was due to an ” Act of God.”
- That negligence was not prow&
- That thehad no cause of action as the right hour been assign’ ed
after action brought and no notice had been given to the defendant
