Topic 1 and 2

Question 1

Godwin Daboh v The state

Answer 1

This case involves two appellants convicted of conspiracy and fraud. The first appellant, the Executive Director of the Nigerian States Assurance Corporation Limited, and the second appellant, a bank manager, conspired to obtain a certificate of registration as an insurer by falsely claiming to have a substantial deposit in the bank.

Key Points:

1. False Representation: The first appellant, with the help of the second appellant, falsely represented to the Registrar of Insurance that the company had a deposit of N50,000.00 in the Bank of the North Limited.
2. Conspiracy: The two appellants worked together to deceive the Registrar of Insurance.
3. Fraudulent Intent: The appellants intended to defraud the Registrar of Insurance by obtaining the certificate of registration through false pretenses.

Court’s Decision:

The court upheld the conviction of both appellants. It found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the appellants. The court rejected the argument that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential elements of the offenses.

Key Takeaways:

• The court emphasized the importance of proving a conspiracy between the two appellants.
• The court also highlighted the need to establish fraudulent intent and the reliance of the victim on the false representation.
• The case underscores the serious consequences of fraudulent activities and the importance of upholding the integrity of financial institutions and regulatory bodies.

Note: This is a simplified summary of a complex legal case. For a more detailed understanding, please refer to the original court judgment.

Question 2

UNN v Turner &Sons

Answer 2

The court held that a “Sinking Fund Policy” is not an insurance contract, since a sinking fund policy entails a promise to pay a lump sum at the expiration of a date stated in the policy. It lacks the characteristic of uncertainty which is a primary characteristic in insurance contracts.

Question 3

Prudential Insurance v Inland Revenue Commissioner

Answer 3

The court held that an endowment policy (life insurance policy) satisfies the element of uncertainty of the occurrence of an event, death. While death is certain, the date at which it will happen is never certain!

Question 4

Charles Chime v United Nigeria Insurance

Answer 4

Definition of insurance

“it is a contract whereby one part, called the unsure in consideration of money to be paid to him called a premium, but another party, agrees to indemnify the later against any loss resulting from the happening of a certain event.”

Question 5

Department of Trade & Industry v Christopher Motorist Ass

Answer 5

The St. Christopher Motorists Association (the association) was a proprietary club owned and managed by a defendant company. It provided a “chauffeur service” to its members in exchange for an annual fee. The service was offered to members who were unable to drive their own cars due to accidents or disqualification.

The Department of Trade and Industry sought a declaration that the association was carrying on insurance business, subjecting it to the Insurance Companies Act 1958.

The court ruled that the association’s provision of a chauffeur service constituted insurance business. It reasoned that the service was a form of financial protection or a specific benefit provided in exchange for a premium, similar to a traditional insurance contract.

Question 6

Lucena v Crauford

Answer 6

The Crown commissioners insured enemy ships seized by British vessels which were still on high seas. The statute which allowed seizure only permitted seizure when the vessels were in British ports or British waters. Some of these ships were lost on high seas. The issue was whether or not the commissioners had insurable interest in the ships.

The House of Lords held that at the time of the loss the commissioners had no insurable interest in the ships. Lord Eldon said as follows: “An insurable interest is a right in the property or a right derived out of some contract in the property which in either case may be lost upon some contingency affecting the possession or enjoyment of the property.

Question 7

Wilson v Jones

Answer 7

The claimants had no proprietary interest in the cables to be laid themselves, but he had an interest in a contract requiring the complete laying of the cables. The court held that he had a sufficient insurable interest.