The Northern Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs A. Wuraola (1969)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

Per Coker, J.S.C

In the High Court, Ibadan (Suit No. 1/150/65) the respondent, Ayinla Wuraola, as plaintiff sued the present appellants, The Northern Assurance Co. Ltd., for:-

(i) a declaration that the contract of insurance between the plaintiff and the defendants is not void or voidable and remains binding and subsisting between the parties thereto;

(ii) a declaration that the plaintiff is not bound by conditions 1 and 8 of the standard form contract used by the defendants in the course of their business;

(iii) the sum of £725.10s.0d. being judgment debt and costs awarded by the Ibadan High Court against the plaintiffs in respect of damages arising from one of the risks covered by the said insurance contract less £25 excess applicable to the said policy.

The action was tried by Fatayi Williams, J. (as he then was) and on the 16th March, 1966, he gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants on all heads of his claim with costs. In deciding the case the learned trial judge took the view that a contract of insurance subsisted as between the parties but that the plaintiff was not bound by conditions appearing on the defendants’ usual form of policy as he did not in fact receive a copy of such policy.

In his judgment the learned trial judge stated, inter alia, as follows:- “In view of the averments in the pleadings, the evidence adduced by both parties and the various documents tendered in support, it cannot be disputed, and is in fact not disputed, that a contract of insurance was entered into by both parties and that the said contract was in force at the time of the accident on 7th March, 1965.”

To my mind, the points in dispute are:-

(a) What, in the said contract, were the terms as to user, whether these terms were known to the plaintiff or ought to have been known to him, and whether the terms had been broken, thus giving the defendants the right to repudiate the contract.

(b) Whether “condition (1)” applied to the contract and if so whether the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of this condition prior to the accident, thus again giving the Defendants the right to repudiate the contract.

(c) Whether or not condition “8” applied to the contract. And later on, and at the end of his judgment, he observed:- “

Having found on the three points as above, it seems to me that this action must succeed. The defendants, under the contract of insurance which still subsists, are liable to indemnify the plaintiff against the judgment debt and costs totalling £725.10s.Od awarded against him on 14th June, 1965. The plaintiff is therefore granted the declarations asked for in the first two legs of his claim. In addition, there will be judgment for him for the sum of 025. 10s. as claimed.”

The salient facts of the case are not unfamiliar. The plaintiff (or his agent) executed a proposal form with the defendants’ agents on the 14th September, 1964, for the purpose of insuring his car, a Datsun Bluebird saloon No. WAN 513, which was to be used as a taxi-cab. The proposal form was put in evidence as exhibit ‘L’. Thereafter a cover note or interim receipt, exhibit ‘A’, in a form to which motorists in this country are accustomed, was issued to him.

The cover note was expressed on its face to insure for a period of 30 days from the date of issue, i.e. the 14th September, 1964. After the expiration of the 30 days on the cover note a Certificate of Insurance, exhibit ‘B’, was given to the plaintiff by the defendants. It is needless to state that the certificate of insurance is of an equally familiar form. It shows, inter alia, that a contract of insurance was executed between the parties so as to provide an insurance cover for the plaintiff’s car from the 14th September, 1964, to the 13th September, 1965.