GODFREY ISIEVWORE V. NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY
June 18, 2025EBE EBE UKA VS CHIEF KALU OKORIE IROLO
June 18, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2002) Legalpedia (SC) 29019
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 12, 2002
Suit Number: SC.192/1999
CORAM
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
TEXACO OVERSEAS (NIG.) PETROLEUM COMPANY UNLIMITED APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent sued for debt owned by the appellant for hire of vessels with interest. The court of appeal confirmed the decision of the lower court but reduced the interest to 7 percent as provided by the rules. The appellant appealed and raised the issue of jurisdiction of the High Court while the respondent cross- appealed on interest.
HELD
The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction and that there was no evidence in support of claim to higher interest above the statutory prescription.
ISSUES
On the Main AppealWhether the Lagos State High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the Respondent in view of s.2(2)(f) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act No. 59 of 1991 and s.230(1)(g) of the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Act No.107 of 1993 (the applicable Act as at the time the suit was determined by the Lagos State High Court) now s.251(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal reached the right conclusion having regard to the credible evidence placed by the Appellant before the Court, particularly, with respect to the additional evidence furnished by the Appellant on appeal.OrWhether there were sufficient material evidence placed before the Court of Appeal to enable it set aside the judgment of the Lagos State High Court in favour of the appellant.On the Cross Appeal1. Whether the Appellant can raise the issue of jurisdiction.2 (a) Whether there is a miscarriage of justice as a result of the Court of Appeal ignoring Exhibits A,B,C and which purports to be fresh evidence or additional evidences to show payment by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.(b) Whether Exhibits A,B,C and E are admissible3. Whether Ground 2 of the Grounds of Appeal is competent.4. Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of facts herein
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHEN THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT CAN BE INVOKED
The Admiralty jurisdiction of Federal High Court cannot be invoked once the goods carried by a ship have been discharged in the harbour and delivered to the point of destination of the cargo. In any event, for a claim in admiralty to arise, the cargo or goods must still be in the vessel- Ejiwunmi J.S.C.
PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE FOR THE AWARD OF INTEREST
Where a plaintiff claims award of interest above the statutory interest awardable to it, there must be evidence of the right to that sum on record. The evidence may be the agreement between the parties or evidence of the mercantile custom relevant to the transaction between the parties that led to the claim. It does appear clear that it is not enough to claim the additional interest in the writ without pleading facts in support thereof- Ejiwunmi J.S.C
CASES CITED
Aluminium Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. Nigerian Ports Authority (1987) 1 NWLR (pt.51) 475Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd v. Leventis Technical Company Ltd [1992] 5 NWLR (pt.244) 675 NIDB v. De-Easy Life Electronics (1979) 4 NWLR (pt.597) 8 at 21 London, Chatham & Dover Railway v. S.E. Railway (1893) A.C. 429 at p. 434 Udechukwu v. Okwuka (1956) 1 F.S.C. 70, at p.71; [1956] SCNLR 189; Ekpan & Anor. v. Uyo (1986) 3 NWLR (pt.26) 63
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE
