YORKSHIRE INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. HAWAY

• Pages: 323-330

323



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1969] N.S.C.C.

In the circumstances we would order a stay of execution in respect of the amount

of £24 ordered to be paid by the applicant over and in addition to the £20 which it

was agreed he had been paying to the respondent. This order is made and will

enure until the appeal herein is disposed of or until abrogated by any further order

5



or orders of this Court. We make no order as to costs.

Stay of execution ordered

10

YORKSHIRE INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. HAWAY

THE YORKSHIRE INSURANCE CO. LTD.



APPELLANTS

15



V

S. HAWAY



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 148/1968

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



J.S.C.

20



MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

7th November, 1969.

Insurance Law - Contract of motor vehicle insurance policy part of contract

-

25



Defendant bound to give notice of accident under condition of policy and

failed to do - Plaintiffs could recover from the defendants payment of third

party of damages under S.8 Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act.

ISSUES:

30



1. Whether a party in breach of one of the conditions of a contract, can seek to

rely on other terms of the contract to enforce an obligation.

2. Whether by virtue of the provisions of section 8 of the Motor Vehicle (Third Party

Insurance) Act an insurer can compel the insured who is in breach of the policy

to refund money paid to a third party.

35

FACTS:

The plaintiff sought to recover money it had paid to a third party as a result of

a liability under a contract of Insurance. But as the defendant was found to be in

breach of a condition in the contract, the clause excepting the plaintiff from liability

came into operation. The High Court did not agree. The plaintiffs appealed to the

40



Supreme Court.

HELD:

1.

Since the defendant was at the time of the contract bound by Exhibit 6, then he

was bound to comply with condition No. 1 of Exhibit 6. The trial Judge found

that he did not so comply. Failure on the part of the defendant to comply with

45



condition one put him in breach of Exhibit 6 and condition 9 did come into

operation.

2.

By his breach of condition 1 of Exhibit 6 the defendant was not entitled to compel

the plaintiffs to pay the claim which they did by the receipt of Exhibit 17, but by

virtue of the provisions of section 8 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance)

50



Act, the plaintiffs were compellable to pay the amount adjudged in favour of

the third party, that was £750 which otherwise the defendant would have had to

pay the third party. If that was the case, as indeed it was, the clause of avoidance

of liability contained in Section III of Exhibit 6 was rightly invoked and the

defendant was bound by that clause.