Court Throws Out Sun Insurance Case

Withi 60 days of becoming aware that a person’s right is expected to be contravened in future, the person should apply to the High Court for constitutional redress. This was the nub of the High Court judgment delivered on April 25 on the Sun Insurance (plaintiff) motion seeking constitutional redress after the repeal of The Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act 1948 and the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insur-ance) Regulations 1949 by Section 31 of the Accident Compensation Act 2017.

In his judgment, at the outset Justice Alfred said he was only called upon to decide whether or not he should allow the AttorneyGeneral’s summons to strike out Sun Insurance’s motion. He said Sun Insurance should have applied to the High Court for redress as soon as it became aware that the Act was expected and it would go against Section 27,

In his view, Justice Alfred said the earliest date of enactment would have been July 14, 2017, and July 18, 2017, when the Act was ga¬zetted.

The court ruled that the date when the matter at issue first arose was July 14 and 18, 2017.

“The period of 60 days starts to run from the date when he first became aware of an expected future contravention of his rights.”

Further, Justice Alfred quoted the Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary and said the, “Ignorance of the law which everybody is supposed to know does not afford excuse”.

The A-G’s submission to strike out Sun Insurance motion was allowed and the motion was dismissed. Sun Insurance was also ordered to pay $2000 in costs.