Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

UNIC Ltd V. Fadco (Nig.) Ltd (2000) CLR 4(a) (CA)

Brief

  • Contract of Insurance
  • Formation of Contract
  • Terms of Contract
  • Presumptions
  • Offer & Acceptance

Facts

The printed record show that the plaintiff in the court below claimed by writ of summons dated 23rd February, 1987 the sum of N212,500.00 from the defendant now appellant. The pleadings and evidence of the Respondents in the court below showed that the plaintiff claimed the said sum from the defendant appellant over a contract of insurance, which the plaintiff/respondent said existed between the parties. The Respondent said the contract was created by a letter which the appellant wrote to the Respondents dated 9/6/86. In the said letter the plaintiff, now Respondent claimed that the defendant, now appellant insured the following properties of the Plaintiff/Respondent for N1,500,000.00 being the estimated value of the goods insured by the plaintiff, with the defendant company. The goods are machineries and plants in transit.

It is in the brief of the Respondent, see page 4, that the said letter is produced. It reads:-

  • "The Manager,
  • Universal Trust Bank of Nig. Ltd.
  • No.145 Bello Road,
  • Kano.

Attention Mr. Tikon

Dear Sir,

  • 1
    Goods in transit Insurance Machinery/Plant
  • 2
    Fire Insurance Machinery/Plant Fadco Industries (Nigeria) Limited.
  • Sum insured N1,500,000.00, One million, five hundred thousand Naira only.

We refer to the discussion between Tikon/Salawu and have pleasure of in advising the premiums payable on the above as follows:

  • Transit Risk, one week cover N1,500,000.00
  • Fire (sic) parlis risk one year N4,500.00

    • However, we confirm holding the above named covered and shall he grateful if you will let us have your cheque for N6,000.00 in settlement to enable us conclude preparation of the insurance documents.

    We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

    Yours faithfully,

    E.O. Oyeyemi

    For: Branch Manager"

    In the Respondent brief is the following submission "I respectfully submit that the contents of exhibit A (i.e. the letter quoted above) are clear and self explanatory ... A reasonable man reading exhibit A is bound to believe that the applicant is making an offer to the Respondent, and which the respondent can only accept by paying the sum of N6,000.00 as a premium.

    "The Respondent in an unequivocal and unconditional manner accepted the appellants offer the next day being 20th June, 1996 by paying the sum of N6,000.00 as premium thereby establishing an insurance contract between appellant and Respondent." The brief of the appellant did not deny the bare facts contained in the above, of respondent averment except that the appellant deny the existence of an insurance contract which covered the kind of loss incurred by the Respondent, because the appellant in his brief on page 2 averred as followed:

    However it was the case of the appellant that it did insure the Plants/Machinery of the Respondent but that the insurance was not intended and did not cover the sort of accident that had occurred, and was not one in which the appellant had agreed to provide cover for. It was the case of the appellant that the goods in transit policy which was for a period of between 19th June to 8th July only cover of the conveying vehicle a plant machinery whilst in transit by road from Candy Company Ltd. Kano to insured premises situate at Sharada Industrial Area Phase 1, Kano. See exhibit C which is the standard form of the policy cover was not meticulously considered by this trial court."

    It was upon the above 'acts in the lower court that the trial court gave judgment to the Respondent in the sum N212,500, having held that the Respondent had proved his case. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether or not exhibit C which was relied upon by the appellant at the...
    • Read More