May 27, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2009-06) Legalpedia 68716 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Abuja Fri Jun 19, 2009 Suit Number: SC 247/2000 CORAM M A MUKHTAR, […]
CORAM
M A MUKHTAR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
I F OGBUAGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
C M CHUKWUMA-ENEH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
J A FABIYI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
O A ADEKEYE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
BASINCO MOTORS LTD
APPELLANTS
1. WOERMANN-LINE
2. UMARCO (NIGERIA) PLC.
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
MARITIME LAW -LOCUS STANDI – JURISDICTION – PARTIES TO A CONTRACT – INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant who was not a party to a bill of lading instituted an action against the respondent claiming alleged short landing of spare parts. The respondents contested on the basis that the appellant had no locus standi. The trial court held that the appellant lacked locus standi. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The appellant has further appealed.
HELD
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether the failure by the lower court to consider the Reply Brief of Argument filed by the appellant did not amount to a branch of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing as guaranteed by section 36(1) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria.
“Whether the Appellant even though described in the bill of lading as “Notify Party” indeed lacked Locus to sue upon the bill of lading”.
Was the lower court right in holding that the appellant cannot maintain an action against the Respondent (sic) in tort by reason of section 375 (1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1990 when it is the purchaser and a bailor for value having paid the price and freight and the property in the goods had passed to it by virtue of it being the holder of the original copy of the bill of lading and in possession of part of the consignment”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
LOCUS STANDI – RIGHT TO SUE ON A BILL OF LADING
“Locus Standi to sue on a bill of lading either in contract, bailment or Negligence in Tort is statutory derivable from section 375(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act Cap 224 laws of the Federation 1990.”- PER ADEKEYE JSC
BILL OF LADING – WHO CAN PROSECUTE AN ACTION ON A BILL OF LADING ?
“It is only a consignee or an endorsee in a bill of lading that can prosecute an action in respect of same. A ‘Notify Party’ whose name is not listed in the provision of the stated law is deemed to be excluded. As such, he has no ground to stand in pursuit of an action on a contract to which he is not a party.” PER FABIYI JSC
LOCUS STANDI – A PLAINTIFF WHO HAS NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT WITH THE DEFENDANT CANNOT SUE
“Where the question of locus standi comes into the issue of cause of action a plaintiff who has no privity of contract with the defendant will fail to establish a cause of action, for breach of the contract as he will simply not have a locus standi to sue the defendant on the contract”. PER ADEKEYE JSC
PRIVITY OF CONTRACT – ONLY PARTIES TO A CONTRACT CAN SUE OR BE SUED ON THE CONTRACT
“Only parties to a contract can sue or be sued on the contract and a stranger to a contract can neither sue or be sued on the contract even if the contract is made for his benefit and purports to give him the right to sue or make him liable upon it”. PER ADEKEYE JSC
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – RULES OR PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS
“The rules or principles governing the interpretation of statutory provisions are as follows: –
1. It is the intention of the legislature that should be sought, and same is to be ascertained from the words of the statute alone and not from other source.
2. Where the word used in the provisions of a statute are clear, simple and unambiguous, they should be given their simple, natural and ordinary meaning.
3. The court is not concerned with the result of its interpretation, that is, it is not the court’s province to pronounce on the wisdom or otherwise of the statute but only to determine its meaning.
4. The court must not import into a legislation words that were not used by the legislature, and which will give a different meaning to the text of the statute as enacted by the legislature.
5. The court must not bring to bear on the provisions of a statute its prejudices as to what the law should be, but rather should interpret the law from the clear words used by the legislature”. PER ADEKEYE JSC
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – FOREIGN LAW ARE ONLY PERSUASIVE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
“The court must interpret the law as it is not as ought to be. It is settled principle in the Nigeria Legal system that foreign laws and cases are only persuasive in the Interpretation of our Constitution and Statutes. The learned counsel cannot rely on foreign cases to hold that decision of our courts based on the provision of section (1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1990, is not, good law in that it gives no room for the consideration of the peculiar circumstance of each case in terms of the type and/or the nature of the relevant bill of lading”. PER ADEKEYE JSC
JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION AS A STRICT MATTER OF LAW
“Jurisdiction is a strict matter of law confined by either the constitution or by a statute”. PER ADEKEYE, JSC
LOCUS STANDI – MEANING/IMPORTANCE OF LOCUS STANDI- INGREDIENTS A PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM MUST REVEAL TO ACHIEVE THE STATUS OF LOCUS STANDI
“The terms locus standi denotes the legal capacity to institute and action in a court of law. It is a status which the plaintiff must have before being heard in court. It is a condition precedent to determination on the merits. In order to achieve the status of locus standi, the claim of the plaintiff must reveal.
(a) A legal or justiciable right
(b) Show sufficient or special interest adversely affected
(c) A justiciable cause of action
Momoh v. Olotu (1970) 1 All NLR pg 117, Bolaji v Bamgbose (1986( 4 NWLR pt 37 pg 632, Adesanya v The President 19815 SC 112, Adefulu v. Oyesile 1989 5 NWLR pt 122 pg 377, Thomas v. Olufosoye 1986 1 NWLR pt 18 pg 669,Odeneye v Efunnuga 1990 7 NWLR pt 164 pg 618,Owodunni v. Registered Trustees of CCC 2000 10 NWLR pt 675 pg 315.” PER. ADEKEYE, JSC
PRIVITY OF CONTRACT – DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT
” The doctrine of privity of contract portrays that as a general rule, a contract affects the parties thereto and cannot be enforced or against a person who is not a party to it. In short only parties to a contract can sue or be sued on the contract and a stranger to a contract can neither sue or be sued on the contract even if the contract is made for his benefit and purports to give him the right to sue or make him liable upon it. Moreover the fact that a person who is a stranger to the consideration of a contract stands in such near relationship to the party from whom the consideration proceeds that he may be considered a party to the consideration does not entitle him to sue or be used upon the contract. Negbenebor v. Negbenebor 19711 ALL NLR 210, Ikpeazu v. A.C.B Ltd 1965 NMLR 374, K.S.O. Allied Products, Ltd. V. Kofo Trading Co. Ltd. (1996) 3 NWLR pt 436 pg 244, Alfortrin Ltd. v. A. Y. 19969 NWLR pt 475 pg. 634.” PER ADEKEYE, JSC
LOCUS STANDI- EFFECT OF LOCUS STANDI ON THE COURT’
”Where the appellant has no locus standi to institute an action, the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on such matter.” PER ADEKEYE, JSC
LOCUS STANDI – IMPORTANCE OF LOCUS STANDI
”Locus standi has been described as a unquestionable threshold issue. In order that a court may have jurisdiction the plaintiff must have locus standi to commence or institute the action. Hence locus standi has also been described as a forerunner to jurisdiction.” PER. ADEKEYE, JSC
LOCUS STANDI – HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PLAINTIFF HAS LOCUS STANDI
”The question whether a plaintiff has locus standi to sue is determinable from the totality of averments in his statement of claim. If there is no requisite locus standi to sue by a plaintiff it is not necessary to consider whether there is a genuine case on the merit. I must note here the decisions on the point in Momoh v. Ololu (1970) 1 All NLR 117; Bolaji v. Bamgbose (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 37) 632; Abraham Adesanya v. The President, Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) 5 SC 112, Odeneye v. tjunuga (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 164) 618.” PER FABIYI JSC
CASES CITED
1. Fasasi Adesanya v. Leigh Hoegh & Co. (1968) 1 All NLR 333
2. Broadline Enterprises.Ltd. v. Monterey Maritime Corporation (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 417) 1
3. Ma ‘aji Galadima v. Alhaji Adamu Tambai (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt. 677) 1
4. Aqua Ltd v. Ondo State Sports Council 1988 4 NWLR Pt.91 page 622
5. Fawehinmi v. IGP 2000 7 NWLR Pt.665 page 481
6. UBRBDA v. Alkes 1998 2 NWLR Pt.537 page 328
7. Awolowo v. Shagari 1979 6 – 9 SC page 51 ANN v. FRN 1985 2 NWLR Pt. 6 page 137
8. Awolaja v. Seatrade Groningen B.V 1993 3 NWLR Pt.280 page 209
9. Bothia Maritime Inc v. Fareast Mercantile Co. Ltd 2001 9 NWLR Pt.772 page
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Merchant Shipping Act Cap. 224,Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990