Aluminium Manufacturing Company (Nigeria) Ltd. V. Nigerian Ports Authority (1987)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OBASEKI, J.S.C

The question of the limits of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as provided by the Federal High Court Act (formerly Federal Revenue Court Decree) 1973 has arisen in only a few cases that have come before this Court on appeal. It has only been incidental to the real question of whether a claim filed before the Federal High Court comes or does not come within the jurisdiction of that Court. That appears to me to be the position in this case and the main question for determination by this Court is this:

“Does the claim of the appellant come within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court”

The Federal High Court (Kachikwu, J.) answered this question in the negative and transferred the suit to the Lagos State High Court in pursuance of the powers vested in it by the Federal High Court Act section 22(2).

The Court of Appeal also answered the question in the negative when the matter was taken up there on appeal by the plaintiff/appellant. The Court of Appeal however set aside the order transferring the suit to the Lagos State High Court and substituted it with an order striking out the suit. Still dissatisfied, the Plaintiff/appellant has now raised the question before the Supreme Court in this appeal.

The claim before the Federal High Court was a simple claim of N198,872.99 general and special damages with interest at the rate of 10% per annum for “breach of a contract of bailment and or breach of duty as a bailee in the custody of 47 packages of aluminium sheets delivered to the defendant ex. M.V. River Aboine.” More particularly, the particulars of claim endorsed on the writ of summons read:

C.I.F. value of 47 packages of aluminium sheets N178,872.99 General damages N20,000;And the plaintiff claims N198,872.99 with interest at 10% per annum and costs.”

The pith of the matter is that 47 packages of aluminium sheets were lost while they were in the custody of the defendant.

This is brought out clearly by the facts pleaded by the plaintiff in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8,9, 11, 12 and 13 which read:

“3. By a Bill of Lading No. 10 dated Amsterdam 4th May, 1981 and issued by Elder Dempster Lines Ltd. it was certified that 78 packages of wooden plates were consigned to the plaintiff at Apapa on M.V. River Aboine.

4. On or about the 18th day of May.1981, the said M.V. “River Aboine” arrived at Apapa bearing the aforesaid packages of wooden plates.
5. By an Importers Tally Sheet No. B0 753-00521 dated 31/5/81, it was certified by the defendant that 78 wooden plates of aluminium sheets were off-loaded from the said M.V. River Aboine into the defendant’s custody.
6. By an ‘Import Entry For Home Use’ dated 21st day of May, 1981, it was certified by the Board of customs and Excise that a duty of N24,090.67 was paid on 78 packages aluminium sheets ex M.V. Aboine the value of which consignment is N229,434.91.
7. By a letter addressed to the defendant dated June 4, 1981, Messrs Mid Maritime Services Ltd. the Plaintiff’s clearing agents, notified the defendant that 47 packages out of the aforementioned consignment were short delivered.
8. By a letter dated the 10th September, 1981, the defendant informed the plaintiff that investigation revealed that 78 packages were manifested and all recorded as landed into defendant’s custody. However, only 31 packages were traced and delivered to the plaintiff. Port police had been requested to investigate on the loss of 47 packages.
9. By a further letter to the plaintiff dated the 15th October 1981, the defendant stated as follows:

‘Further to my letter dated 10/9/81, investigation conducted to locate the 47 plates has not been successful. There is no record of the 47 plates being delivered and since they cannot be located despite series of physical searches, it should be assumed that they were illegally removed from this quay.’

11. The plaintiff avers that the defendant was a bailee for reward of the said wooden plates and was accordingly under a duty to deliver them to the plaintiff intact.
12. In breach of contract and/or duty, the defendant short delivered 47 wooden plates of aluminium sheets to the plaintiff.
13. Further or alternatively, the said loss was caused by the negligence of the defendant, its servants or agents in breach of the defendant’s duty as a bailee for reward.”

When, therefore, objection was raised in limine to the jurisdiction of Federal High Court in that the claim as framed does not come or fall within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and that the Federal High Court cannot determine the matter in exercise of its civil jurisdiction, the learned trial Judge, Kachikwu, J. (as he then was) upheld the objection. In his ruling, the learned Judge said, inter alia.”

“The claim is for breach of contract of bailment. The fact that the Nigerian Ports Authority is the defendant does not bring it within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court………The claim has nothing to do with the revenue of the Federal Government. In the circumstances I am of the view that the claim does not come within section 7 of the Federal High Court Act 1973. Therefore. I have no jurisdiction to entertain it. The proper order to make is one of transfer. Accordingly and in pursuance the powers conferred on me by section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act 1973, this case is transferred to the Lagos State High Court for hearing and determination.”

Aggrieved by the Ruling, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal to reverse the order of the learned Judge and to order the case to be tried in the Federal High Court. Only two grounds were filed and they read: