Expom Ghana Limited Vrs Vanguard Assuarance Co. Ltd & Anor [2022] GHASC 84 (25 May 2022)

Expom Ghana Limited Vrs Vanguard Assuarance Co. Ltd & Anor [2022] GHASC 84 (25 May 2022)

The Supreme Court (majority) held that the Court of Appeal erred by relying on an untendered document to interpret the Watchmen’s Clause. The correct clause required a night watchman, not specifically trained security personnel. The plaintiff’s conduct did not constitute a breach of the insurance contract, and the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proof for allegations of fraud and arson. The plaintiff is entitled to indemnity under the policy, except for the award of costs on a full indemnity basis.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 84
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Expom Ghana Limited; 1st Defendant/appellant/respondent: Vanguard Assurance Company Ltd.; 2nd Defendant: TM-Star Insurance Services Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
25 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court restored except for costs awarded on full indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Insurance Contracts, Burden of Proof, Contractual Warranties and Conditions, Repudiation of Liability, Standard of Proof for Allegations of Crime in Civil Cases
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Interpretation of Insurance Contracts Burden of Proof Contractual Warranties and Conditions Repudiation of Liability Standard of Proof for Allegations of Crime in Civil Cases

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Expom Ghana Limited

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Vanguard Assurance Company Ltd.

1st Defendant/appellant/respondent

TM-Star Insurance Services Ltd.

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff breached the Watchmen’s Clause in the insurance contract
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relying on an untendered contract document
  3. 3 Whether the defendant discharged the burden of proof for allegations of fraud and arson

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court (majority) held that the Court of Appeal erred by relying on an untendered document to interpret the Watchmen’s Clause. The correct clause required a night watchman, not specifically trained security personnel. The plaintiff’s conduct did not constitute a breach of the insurance contract, and the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proof for allegations of fraud and arson. The plaintiff is entitled to indemnity under the policy, except for the award of costs on a full indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court restored except for costs awarded on full indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to recover €4,942,311.53 and interest at prevailing commercial rate from 11/5/10 until date of final payment.
  • Plaintiff to recover €400,000 for clearing debris.