Sic Insurance Company Ltd Vrs Asamoah [2018] GHASC 60 (21 November 2018)

Sic Insurance Company Ltd Vrs Asamoah [2018] GHASC 60 (21 November 2018)

The Supreme Court held that the alleged under-declaration of the vehicle's value to customs was not material to the insurance contract, as customs valuation and insurance valuation are distinct and determined by different criteria. There was insufficient evidence of fraud or deliberate illegality by the appellant in the customs process. The insurer was bound by the agreed sum assured and premium, and the appellant's disclosure was adequate for the purposes of the insurance contract. The Court of Appeal erred in annulling the contract on grounds of public policy and statutory infraction without sufficient evidence. The appeal was allowed, the Court of Appeal's judgment set aside, and...

Citation
[2018] GHASC 60
Parties
Defendant/appellant/respondent: SIC Insurance Company Ltd.; Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Ken Kwame Asamoah
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
21 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment set aside; judgment entered for appellant; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Insurable Interest, Material Non Disclosure, Misrepresentation, Fraud, Public Policy, Illegality in Contracts
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Contract Law Insurable Interest Material Non Disclosure Misrepresentation Fraud Public Policy Illegality in Contracts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SIC Insurance Company Ltd.

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Ken Kwame Asamoah

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant misrepresented the value of the insured vehicle and/or failed to disclose material facts to the insurer, entitling the insurer to avoid the contract of insurance.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged under-declaration of the vehicle's value to customs constituted fraud or illegality sufficient to vitiate the insurance contract.
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in annulling the contract of insurance on grounds of public policy and statutory infraction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the alleged under-declaration of the vehicle's value to customs was not material to the insurance contract, as customs valuation and insurance valuation are distinct and determined by different criteria. There was insufficient evidence of fraud or deliberate illegality by the appellant in the customs process. The insurer was bound by the agreed sum assured and premium, and the appellant's disclosure was adequate for the purposes of the insurance contract. The Court of Appeal erred in annulling the contract on grounds of public policy and statutory infraction without sufficient evidence. The appeal was allowed, the Court of Appeal's judgment set aside, and...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment set aside; judgment entered for appellant; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay GHC116,200.00 to plaintiff as sum assured.
  • Interest on GHC116,200.00 at prevailing market rate until date of High Court judgment, and thereafter at post-judgment rates until final payment.