BRONWEN ENERGY TRADING LIMITED V. OAN OVERSEAS AGENCY (NIG) LTD & ORS - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

BRONWEN ENERGY TRADING LIMITED V. OAN OVERSEAS AGENCY (NIG) LTD & ORS

NIGERIAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED & ANOR V. KAN BISCUITS COMPANY LIMITED
March 27, 2025
EMEGHOGHENA JULIA V. NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE CORPS
March 27, 2025
NIGERIAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED & ANOR V. KAN BISCUITS COMPANY LIMITED
March 27, 2025
EMEGHOGHENA JULIA V. NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE CORPS
March 27, 2025
Show all

BRONWEN ENERGY TRADING LIMITED V. OAN OVERSEAS AGENCY (NIG) LTD & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2022-02) Legalpedia 98310 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Feb 18, 2022

Suit Number: SC.310/2015

CORAM


MARY UKAEGO PETER – ODILI

EJEMBI EKO


PARTIES


BRONWEN ENERGY TRADING LTD

APPELLANTS 


OAN OVERSEAS AGENCY NIGERIA LTD & ORS

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


ACTION, ADMIRALTY LAW, APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, DAMAGES, INTEREST, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimant/Appellant instituted an action against the Defendants/Respondents claiming the sum of $1,986,939.97, being outstanding debt for port and cargo dues and ships’ charges and agency fees. The Claimant/Appellant also made an ex-parte application to the trial court seeking for the arrest of the two vessels which were the only known vessel of the 1st Defendant/ Respondent. The trial Court granted the application as the vessels were arrested pending the provision of a Bank Guarantee from a reputable Bank in Nigeria to secure the claim of the Claimant/Appellant at the Federal High Court. The 1st Defendant/Respondent also provided a Bank Guarantee from Ecobank of Nigeria Plc to secure the claim of the Appellant at the Federal High Court, Lagos, and on this basis, both the vessel, MT “Ocean Success” and Cargo of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) were released from arrest. The Court after series of applications from parties heard the substantive mater and held in favour of the Claimant/Appellant. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court, the Defendant/Respondent herein appealed to the Court of Appeal. Aggrieved with the decision of the lower Court, the Claimant/Appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal is essentially against the success of the Counter claim of the 1st Respondent because the lower Court agreed and affirmed the decision of the trial Court on the claim of the Appellant, but went ahead to grant the counter claim of the 1st Respondent, this decision nettled the Appellant who appealed to this Court.

 


HELD


Appeal Allowed in Part; Cross Appeal Struck Out

 


ISSUES


Whether the Court of Appeal was right in awarding the sum of United States dollars US$400,000.00 in favour of the 1st respondent as daily character when on the evidence on record and as admitted by the respondent. It is neither charterer nor owner of the Vessel MT “Ocean Success” and when proof by evidence as required by law of such a colossal sum having been incurred by the 1st Respondent as daily charter cost was not before the Court. Grounds 1 & 2 of Notice of Appeal dated 11/02/2015 and filed on same date.

 

Whether the Court of appeal was right in awarding the sum of United States dollars US$9,500.00 in favour of the 1st Respondent being cost of issuing Bank Guarantee and interest of 18% being Central Bank of Nigeria official rate on the sum of the Bank Guarantee, when the evidence required under law in support of the claims was not before the Court. Ground 5 of the Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 11/02/2015.

Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it awarded “post judgment interest at the rate of 5% from date of judgment until the total sum is fully liquidated” when no such claim was made by the 1st Respondent before the Court. Ground 8 of the Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 11/02/2015.

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


LEGAL CAPACITY – WHO HAS LEGAL CAPACITY TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR WRONGFUL ARREST OF A VESSEL?


“The Court below however granted that counter claim. It is clear that the Court of Appeal fell into error in awarding US$400,000.00 in favour of the 1st Respondent when it was found as fact that the 1st Respondent was not the owner of the arrested vessel. This is because if it is the case that the 1st Respondent was neither owner nor charterer of the arrested vessel, the question this Court ought to ask is whether the 1st Respondent has the legal capacity in the circumstance to maintain an action for the alleged wrongful arrest. This is because it is the law that only a demise charterer or the owner of an arrested vessel who possesses the requisite legal capacity to maintain an action for wrongful arrest. It is trite that the 1st Respondent cannot assume a right nor can the Court of Appeal clothe it with a right which it does not legally possess.

The law is that only owners of a ship or demise charterers that can sue and be sued for loss or damage arising from the use of the ship or for wrongful arrest and/or detention of the ship. See Eastwind Transport (Nig) Ltd v. Comet Merchant Bank Limited 1995-1997 Vol. 4 NSC (Nigerian Shipping Cases) pages 85.

The case put forward is that the 1st respondent is neither the owner nor charterer of the arrested vessel and so any purported damage or loss suffered by the respondent was voluntary and self-induced and underserving of relief from this Court. I refer to R.C.C. (Nig) Ltd v. R.P.C. Ltd(2005) 10 NWLR (pt. 934) 6.5 at 638 the Apex Court held thus:

“A plaintiff who claims damages for the commission of a tort or breach of contract must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss which he has sustained consequent upon the defendant’s wrong, and, if he fails to do so, he cannot claim damages for any such loss which he ought reasonably to have avoided. On the other hand, where the plaintiff does mitigate his loss, he cannot recover damages in respect of that avoided loss even if the steps he took to avoid the loss are characterized as being more than what was reasonably necessary”.

-PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C

 


SPECIAL DAMAGES- REQUIREMENT FOR CLAIMING SPECIAL DAMAGES


“Apart from the fact that the above heads of claims were not specifically pleaded, no evidence whatsoever was led before the Federal High Court being the Court of trial and none was made available at the Court below in support of the various heads of claims. Therefore, the award of US$400,000.00 being alleged calculated daily charter cost was erroneously dished out as no proof was provided as the law requires. In the case of Nwanji v. Coastal services (Nigeria) Ltd (2004) 11 NWLR (Part 885) 552 at 568,57, Uwaifo, JSC had this to say:

“The only part of the Statement of Claim where iron rods and cement were mentioned was the final claim paragraph. There it is simply stated thus:

’41 trucks of cement and iron rods cost N74,000.00″.

Even if this had been made an averment and not just part of the particulars of claim, it would still have been wrongfully inadequate and lacking in specificity. There is no indication as to how many bags of cement and number of iron rods in one truck. The question remains how N74,000.00 stated was calculated. No Court can determine this without an averment as to the number of iron rods and bags of cement, and the cost of each. In the circumstances therefore, the evidence adduced must be considered inadmissible”.

In the above cited case, BELGORE, JSC, in this contributing judgment at page 571, held thus:

“In our procedure for trying civil matters the position has always been that all items claimed must be

clearly pleaded. In claiming special damages, the pleadings must be clear as to what is being claimed. In this matter on appeal, a lump sum was pleaded as cement and iron rods lost without specifically averring to quantity and cost of each material. The Court must rely on what parties claim specifically and as impartial arbiter must not embark on doing the arithmetic the parties never put forward, the purpose of pleading is to clearly alert the opponent what he is to meet. Certainly, pleading must contain facts, only facts, the opponent is to meet and not evidence; but in situation where loss of certain times is claimed, quantity of such items and the value in money must be dearly averred in pleading. This will obviate doubt and allow parties to the suit make preparation to meet the averment.”

-PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C

 


CASES CITED



STATUTES REFERRED TO


Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1991

Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules 1993

Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules 2011,

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended

Evidence Act

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.