M.G.I. ASS. LTD. V. MARTINS

• Pages: 430-435

N.M.G.I. ASS. LTD. V. MARTINS



430

trate's Court and the High Court which are assessed at 10 guineas and 50 guineas

respectively.

Appeal allowed.

N.M.G.I. ASS. LTD. V. MARTINS

NATIONAL EMPLOYERS MUTUAL GENERAL APPELLANTS

INSURANCE ASSOCIATION LIMITED

V

LADUN MARTINS



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 74/1969

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

22nd December, 1969.

Insurance Law - Plaintiff required to inform insurer of bringing of action - One

letter sent did not give adequate notice but Judge found another did which

was sent and from evidence received - Insurers liable to pay interest on



judgment not under Motor Vehicle (Third Party) Insurance Act but under



25

Order 46 r. 7 Supreme Court (Civil Procedure) Rules applicable in Lagos

which enable court to award up to 5% interest.

ISSUES:

1.

Does a letter of demand constitute notice of an impending action?



30

2.

Whether proof that a letter was properly addressed and posted is evidence that

it was delivered to the addressee.

FACTS:

The Plaintiff was given judgment in an action for damages as a result of an ac-



cident in which the insured by the defendant was involved. The defendant ap-



35

pealed on the ground that the notice of action was not proper.

HELD:

1.

Exhibit "K" did not amount to a proper notice under Section 10(2) of the Motor

Vehicle (Third Party) Act, as it did not notify the insurers of the bringing of an



action against the insured. The trial Judge was wrong in holding that Exhibit



40

"K" constituted a notice under Section 10(2)(a).

2.

Proof that a letter was properly addressed and posted is

prima facie

evidence

that it was delivered to the addressee in due course. But where, as in this case,

the addressee has led evidence that he did not receive the letter, then a straight



issue of fact is raised, and before making a finding of fact as to the delivery or



45

non-delivery of the letter, the Court ought to examine the evidence carefully.

3.

In this case, the Supreme Court was satisfied that the trial Judge sufficiently

reviewed the evidence in this regard, and that on the strength of Binuyo's

evidence which he accepted as the truth, he was fully justified in coming to the



conclusion as he did, that the original of Exhibit "M" was delivered to the



50

defendants.

4.

On a plain reading of Section 10(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party) Insurance

Act, it was clear that apart from the liability of the insurers to pay the judgment

debt and costs they were also liable to pay any sum payable by virtue of any

5

10

15

20