NADER VS BOARD OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE
September 3, 2025OKUMAGBA VS EGBE
September 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1965-01) Legalpedia 91457 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Abuja
Fri Jan 15, 1965
Suit Number: SC 98/1964
CORAM
ADEMOLA CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IDIGBE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
NIGERIA PORTS AUTHORITY
APPELLANTS
AKAR
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONTRACT-BREACH-DAMAGES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants for failure of the defendants to watch over goods left in their custody as a result of which the goods got missing
HELD
The court held that the defendants were entitled to the protection availed them by section 91 (a) and (b) of the Ports Act and accordingly allowed the appeal
ISSUES
Whether the learned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself on the onus of proof in regard to Section 91 (a) and (b) of the ports Act
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE
‘We point out that in the construction of a statute it is necessary that the words used by the statute should be considered and that the construction should not be based on any assumptions that the statute is merely declaratory of a particular state of things or any existing law’- COKER, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
Bonnington Castings Ltd. v. Wardlaw [1956] A.C.6 13
Wharf v. Goodman Bros. [1936] 1 All E.R. 258
The Glendarroch [1894] P.226
Medawar v. Grand Hotel Co. [1891] 2 Q.B. 11
Hurst v. Evans [1917] l K.B. 352
Bank of England v. Vagliano Bros. [ 1891 ] A.C. 107 at p. 145:-
Bullen v. The Swan Electric Engraving Co. (1907) 23 T.L.R. 258
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Ports Ordinance, 1952
Ports Act Cap. 155
Grinding of Metals (Miscellaneous Industries) Regulations, 1925
