CORAM

---

COKER,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

LEWIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SOWEMIMO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

THE LION OF AFRICA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDAND APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent claimed the Judgment sum awarded in her favour from the appellant. Who contended that she was not entitled to the sum.

---

HELD

---

The Court held that a third party was limited in his claim by section 6(1)(b)(ii) of the Motion Vehicles (Third Party) Insurance Act.

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Respondent was entitled to bring this action against the appellant under the provisions of the Motion Vehicles (Third Party) Insurance Act.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

MEANING OF NEGLIGENCE IN A MOTOR ACCIDENT CASE

---

“Anyone who travels as a passenger in a private car has, of course, a right of action against his host, if negligent driving of the host, or of the hosts servant if he is driving within the scope of his employment, results in injuries to the passenger, but this may be a barren remedy if the host is insured only within the compulsory limits. Even if the host has a wider insurance, the direct remedies against the insurance company available to a third party within the range of compulsory insurance will not be open to the passenger.” PER LEWIS JSC

---

CASES CITED

---

GATES V. W.A. & R.J. JACOBS (1920) 1 CH.567

WYATT V. GUILDHALL INSURANCE CO. LTD (1937) ALL E.R VOL. 1 at P.792

MCCARTHY V. BRITISH OAK INSURANCE CO.LTD (1938) ALL E.R VOL 1 at P.1

YASSIN V. BARCLAYS BANK D.C.O (1968) NMLR 380 at 387.388

THE NEW INDIAN ASSURANCE CO. LTD V. ODUBANJO SC. 85/1969 (UNREPORTED) of the 18th October, 1971

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

MOTOR VEHICLES (THIRD PARTY INSURANCE) ACT

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT (1934).

HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND 3RD EDITION VOL.22 < br />

LAWS OF EASTERN NIGERIA (1963) CAP 61 VOL 4

ANNUAL PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT (1970) VOL.1 P.249

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT