UNION BEVERAGES LIMITED VS OWOLABI
July 18, 2025BUSARI AYINDE AND OTHERS VS ADEDOKUN AKANJI AND OTHERS
July 21, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1988-01) Legalpedia 42102 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Lagos
Fri Jan 22, 1988
Suit Number: SC. 42/1986
CORAM
A.G.O AGBAJE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
OPUTA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
WALI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
CRAIG, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CAPTAIN MICHAEL CHACHAROS
APPELLANTS
EKIMPEX LIMITED
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONTRACT – CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA – JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – DAMAGES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Ekimpex Limited, the plaintiff /1st respondent claim against the defendants a declaration: that the plaintiff is entitled to the delivery of 18,000 tons (360,000 bags) of cement on board the ship, M.V. Cindy moored at Bonny, After all efforts to make defendants deliver the said cement had failed, plaintiff file this action and claim against the defendants jointly and severally.
HELD
1. The Admiralty Jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court is that Admiralty Jurisdiction in England that was once conferred on the State High Courts in Nigeria up to 1960 by virtue of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act of 1960. It includes claims in respect of (a) loss or damage to goods carried in a ship and (b) any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship.
The successful prosecution of the claims against the 1st and 2nd defendants estops the plaintiffs from recovering damages from the 3rd and 4th defendants
ISSUES
1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.
2. Whether on the case put forward by the plaintiff in its Writ of Summons, the pleadings and the evidence led, it is entitled to judgment having regard to the evidential burden which rests on it.
3. Whether the 3rd and 4th defendants, i.e. the appellants are liable to the plaintiff in respect of its claim.
4. Whether the damages awarded as special and general damages have been proved as required by law.
5. Whether, if any damages have been proved and double compensation has been awarded.
6. If the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, whether the counter-claim ought to succeed.
7. Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in disallowing the award of N200,000.00 as special damages for broken/damaged bags of cement when the said award in no way constituted double compensation, i.e. having regard to the High Court’s award of N180,000.00 damages for loss of profits on the sound bags of cement only.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO BUYERS’ FOR SELLERS’ FAILURE TO DELIVER GOODS.
‘It is settled law that in the event of breach of contract by the seller in failing or refusing to ship the goods or tender valid documents, the buyer has his remedies in an action for damages for non-delivery.’ PER. A.O OBASEKI JSC.
CASES CITED
Baber v. Meyerstein (1870) L R 4 HL317.
Sewell v. Burdick (1884) 10 AC. 74 at 105).
Lickbarrow v. Mason (1787) 2 T.R. 63;
Smith’s Leading Cases 13th Ed. Vol. 1 p.731).
Johnson v. Taylor Bros & Co. (1920) A.C. 144 at pp. 149, 156.
Landauer & Co. v. Craven & Speeding Bros. (1912) 2 KB. 94 at p.105
Ireland v. Livingston (1972) LR. 5 HL 395 said:
(See Sewell v. Burdick (1884) 10 App. cases page 74 at p.105.)
STATUTES REFERRED TO
English Administration of Justice Act, 1956.
Admiralty Jurisdiction Act of 1960.
