ALLIED TRADING CO. LTD.
V.
G.B.N. LINE

(1985) JELR 75275 (SC)

Supreme Court 28 Jun 1985 Nigeria
BriefBot icon

BriefBot Summary

Free

- The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the 1st Defendant/Respondent was the proper party to be sued, specifically regarding the identification of the “shipowner” under the governing bill of lading. - The bill of lading s

Case Details

Judges:AYO GABRIEL IRIKEFE, J.S.C. (Presided), KAYODE ESO, J.S.C., DAHUNSI OLUGBEMI COKER, J.S.C., ADOLPHUS GODWIN KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C., CHUKWUDIFU AKUNNE OPUTA, J.S.C. (Read the Lead Judgment)
Counsel:E.A. Akinola - for the Appellant L.N. Mbanefo - for the Respondents. OPUTA J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment): This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the court of first instance against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Lagos Division) in favour of the 1st Defendant/Respondent. In the original action, the Plaintiff sued 3 defendants namely: 1.G. B. N. Line 2.Dipgrove Shipping Ltd. and 3.Bulk Lighterage (Nigeria) Ltd. claiming N12,750.93 being the value of 179 cartons of Electric Iron (consignment) transported by defendant's per vessel "NONI" which arrived at Tin Can Island Port Quays under Bill of Lading No. S/L6.15/9/78. The Plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim of 19 paragraphs. The defendants entered an appearance but did not file any Statement of Defence. Some paragraphs of the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim may be relevant and necessary for the consideration of the various issues agitated in his appeal. I will hereunder reproduce those relevant paragraphs :- "2. The Defendants at the time material to Plaintiff's claim were carriers and in control of the vessel "NONI" which arrived at Tin Can Island Port Apapa Quays, Lagos State, on the 27th November, 1978. 5.Out of the said consignment of 850 cartons of Electric Iron, 671 cartons were delivered to the Plaintiff leaving a balance of 179 cartons Electric Iron Short landed. 18. The Defendants have not yet delivered the said 179 cartons Electric iron above nor settled the plaintiffs claim in respect thereof in spite of repeated demands." As I observed earlier on, no Statement of Defence was filed. The case did not even proceed to hearing. Rather on 20th February, 1980, the defendants filed a motion on Notice under Order 13 Rule 20 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules praying:- (i)"for an order that their names be struck out from this Suit on the grounds that they are not proper parties to the said suit or (ii)alternatively that this action should be stayed on the grounds thatEnglish Courts have jurisdiction." Bada, J. refused the application but granted the defendants leave to appeal against that refusal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of....
Other Citations:(1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 74

IREKEFE, J.S.C. (Presiding): I agree with the reasoning and conclusions in the lead judgement just read by my learned brother, Oputa J.S.C. I had earlier on read it in draft. I also will dismiss the appeal and abide by the orders made in the lead judgement aforesaid, inclusive of the order on costs.

ESO, J.S.C.: I had the advantage of reading in draft the judgement in this case which was written by my learned brother Oputa J.S.C. and I agree that the appeal fails and should be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.

The only issue before this Court was whether the 1st Defendant/ Respondent was the proper person to be sued by the Appellant. The crux of the matter, I think, is to determine who the shipowners were in this case as in law the action of the Plaintiff is guided by the bill of lading which is the evidence of the contractual arrangement between the shippers and the shipowners. This is usually the case with carriers by sea. A difficulty arises however when the true owner gives out …

There's more. Sign in to continue reading.

judy.legal is the comprehensive database of case law and legislation from Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria. Gain seamless access to over 77,000 cases, recent judgments, statutes, and rules of court.