ALBERT E. NWOBU & ANOR VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
September 4, 2025CHIEF FESTUS OKOTIE-EBOH & ORS VS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
September 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1962-06) Legalpedia 86006 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Lagos
Fri Jun 15, 1962
Suit Number: SC 328/1960
CORAM
BAIRAMIAN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TAYLOR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BRETT, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
APPELLANTS
JIA ENTERPRISES (ELECTRICAL)LIMITED AND ORS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAW OF EVIDENCE—RES JUDICATA—DOCUMETARY EVIDENCE—APPEAL- LAW OF INSURANCE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st respondent/plaintiff brought an action against the 2nd respondent/defendant claiming money due on an insurance policy for goods and a building destroyed or damages by fire.The appellants brought a motion seeking to be joined as plaintiffs. The judge dismissed their application. The appellants made two more attempts to be joined and had the applications both dismissed.
HELD
The Bank has sufficient power under the floating charge to safeguard its interests and I would dismiss the appeals with costs assessed at 25 guineas.
ISSUES
That the Judge had only to decide, at that stage, whether they had shown a prima facie in-terest?
Whether they had shown a prima facie interest was not res judicata?
That the debenture should have been received as evidence of an insurable interest, and that it was not regis-trable under the Land Registration Act?
Whether the bank have an interest in the subject-matter of the suit?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JUDGMENTS MUST BE BASED ON FACTS IN ISSUE
The facts of which S.53 of the Evidence Act makes a judgment conclusive proof must among other things be facts directly in issue in the case. Per BRETT F.J.
JOINT INSURANCE
‘Again, there can be no objection to combining in one insurance a number of persons having different interests in the subject-matter of the insurance, but I find myself unable to see how an insurance of that character can be called a joint insurance. In such a case the interest of each of the insured is different. The amount of his loss, if the subject matter of the insurance is destroyed or damaged, depends on the nature of his interest, and the covenant of indemnity which the policy gives must, in such a case, necessarily operate as a covenant to indemnify in respect of each individual different loss which the various persons named may suffer. In such a case there is no joint element at all.’ Per BRETT F.J.
INDEMNITY
‘The Bank has no claim whatsoever because it has suffered no loss in respect of the property damaged or destroyed. That property was pro tanto replaced by the claim under the policy which itself came under the floating charge.’ Per BRETT F. J.
CASES CITED
Macaura v. Northern Assurance Co. Ltd. (1925) A.C. 619
Sir Wilfrid Greene, M.R., in General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Limited v. Midland Bank Limited (1940) 2 K.B. 388,400
Illingworth v. Houldsworth (1904) A.C. 355
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Evi-dence Act
The Land Registration Act
The Companies Act
