Panalpina World Transport (Nigeria) Ltd. v. N.T.Wariboko (1975)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

B. A. COKER, J.S.C. 

This is an appeal from the decision of the Port Harcourt High Court delivered by Wai-Ogosu, J., on 3rd November, 1972 in which he awarded judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The particulars of claim are as follows:” The Plaintiff’s claim as against the Defendants is for the recovery of a total sum of 1,053.8.7d (One Thousand and Fifty Three Pounds, Eight Shillings and Seven Pence) being the value of 4 Packages of Personal Effects which the Defendants at Port Harcourt on or about the 23rd of December, 1969, agreed to carry at Zaria and deliver to the Plaintiff at Port Harcourt, but which were negligently lost by the “Defendants, and the sum of 21. 12 being the cost of carriage of the said Packages paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants for a consideration which has totally failed.”

Pleadings were ordered and filed. In paragraphs 3,4,5,7 and 8 the plaintiff averred as follows:

“3. On or about the 23rd of December, 1969 Plaintiff by a letter dated the 23rd of December, 1969, requested the Defendants at Port Harcourt to transport to Port Harcourt the following personal effects,

1 Sewing foot machine
1 Large trunk box
13 burner falks kerosene
1 Electric table fan
1 Large white basin containing various articles.

This letter was copied to the Ag. Head Postmaster III, Zaria District, who was requested to hand over these personal effects to the Defendants. This letter will be founded upon at the trial.

4. On or about the 27th February, 1970, the Defendants took delivery of the following personal effects at Zaria.

1. one New Sewing Foot Machine
2. one Large Trunk Box (locked with undeclared contents)
3. one three burner falks kerosene cooker
4. one Large white basin containing 9 pairs of Lady’s shoes and
5 other various articles, for delivery to the Plaintiff at Port Harcourt.

5. The Plaintiff on the 7th of February, 1970, paid a total sum of 21.12 to the Defendants at Port Harcourt, to cover the cost of transportation and packing of 1 crate 20 cu. ft.

7. The Plaintiff requested the Defendants to deliver the said 4 packages as agreed but the Defendants have neglected or refused to do so.

8. The Defendants in a letter dated the 14th of August, 1970, with reference PJU/GCO/800246 informed the Plaintiff that the 4 packages of personal effects could not be traced and requested the Plaintiff to inform them of the cost of the personal effects including whatever expenses the Plaintiff has incurred.”

Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim was denied, but paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 8 were admitted by the defendants whose main defence was that they in fact collected the plaintiff’s goods as was agreed upon, and that they first arranged with the Nigerian Ports Authority who carried the said goods to Apapa where, later on, the goods were loaded onto the ship “River Ethiope” belonging to the Nigerian National Shipping Line on or about 13th May, 1970, for onward transmission to Port Harcourt. It is also admitted by the defendants that up till the time of this action, they had not delivered the said goods to the plaintiff. It is therefore clear that, the facts of this case are not very much in dispute.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge reserved his judgment. In a well-considered judgment, the learned trial judge summarised the evidence led on either side and went meticulously into the issue of liability as between the parties.
After considering the defence put forward by the defendants, the learned trial judge observed as follows:
“I am in agreement with counsel for the plaintiff that from the evidence before the court defendants here have not told the court what proper arrangements they made for the safety of the goods during  transit.”

In conclusion, the learned trial judge entered the following judgment against the defendants: