CORAM

---

NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI , JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

LEADWAY ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff instituted an action against the Defendants at the Federal High Court for breach of contract of insurance, i.e  for non-delivery of  the Plaintiff’s consignment of  goods which are fish heads and stock fish, by ship from Iceland to Port Harcourt  Rivers State despite payment  of insurance premium.  After the filing of the suit but before hearing, the 1st and 2nd Defendants applied by a motion on notice praying the court to dismiss the suit because the insured goods were not in existence at time the contract of insurance was made, that the insurance policies was paid for after the ship had sailed off and that by virtue of deeds of the Insurance Decree No. 2 of 1997 there can be no valid contract of Marine Insurance without payment of premium. In its ruling the trial Court dismissed the application and entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of N12, 482,240.00k. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether upon the contracts of insurance proved before the lower court, the defendant is unable to cover the loss sustained by the plaintiff on 9th March 1997.Whether the material non-disclosure was established by evidence before the learned trial Judge.Whether the court below was correct when it held that the contract of Marine Insurance in the instant case was concluded before payment of premium ground one.Was the court below correct when it held that there was a valid Marine Insurance contract between the parties with retrospective effect from 6th March 1977, ground 2. Was the court below correct when it held that in the absence of the production by the 1st defendant of the insurance certificate allegedly issued by the Roverton Insurance Co. Ltd, the contract could not be awarded on the ground of non-disclosure, ground 3.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

STATUTE- A STATUTE IS DEFINITE AS TO WHAT IT REPEALS BY ITS ENACTMENT

---

“Generally a statute is definite as to what it repeals by its enactment; and a schedule may recite the existing law repealed. Invariably our legislative aides who draft laws are usually less than tardy and such schedules do not take cognisance of all existing laws with which subsequent laws have inconsistent provisions. PER OMAGE JCA

---

PROVISION OF AN ACT – DUTY OF THE COURT TO IMPLY THE REPEL OF LAW WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF TWO ACTS ARE REPUNGNANT

---

“The courts in the performance of their functions as interpreters of the law usually lean against implying the repeal of law by implication. However, where the provisions of the two acts are so plainly repugnant; one to the other provisions, and demand inconsistent conclusion that effect cannot be given to both at the same time, a repeal of the earlier provision of the law by implication in the operation of the new provisions is inevitable.’’ PER OMAGE JCA

---

RULES OF INTERPRETATION – WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE A CLAUSE FOR REPEALING THE LAW WHICH CONFERS THE RIGHT FOR SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTION ONCE THE PROVISIONS ARE INCONSISTENT TO THE CLAUSE IN A PREVIOUS LAW

---

‘‘Under the rules of interpretation, while it is a fact that a right acquired under a statute will not be taken from a party whose right thereon has ripened, it is not always necessary to include a clause for repealing the law which confer the right for subsequent transaction once the now provisions are inconsistent and provide rules of contrary effect to the clause in a previous law. PER OMAGE JCA

---

CASES CITED

---

None

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Insurance Act 1961Insurance Act 1997Insurance Decree 1997Marine Insurance Act  1990

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT