Cameroon Airlines V. Mike Otutuizu (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

M.D. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

This judgment relates to an appeal and a cross-appeal in respect of the decision of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division in suit No. FHC/1/CS/332/96 delivered on 23rd June, 2000. The respondent/cross-appellant was the plaintiff at the court of trial while appellant/cross-respondent was the defendant. The facts of the case which are hardly in dispute are hereunder supplied.

From his statement of claim and evidence, respondent/cross-appellant’s case is that he bought from the appellant/cross-respondent, an airline, two passenger tickets, exhibits A and B. By these tickets, appellant had contracted to fly the respondent/cross-appellant to Manzini Swaziland with stopovers at Doula in Cameroon and Harare in Zimbabwe. It is not in dispute that the routes in respondent’s journey as agreed by the two parties in exhibit A and exhibit B were to be Lagos – Doula – Harare – Manzini – Harare-Doula-Lagos. Appellant Airline took off from Lagos on 22nd February, 1996. As scheduled, the airline took off the next day with respondent from Harare with a view to proceeding to Manzini in Swaziland. Instead, respondent was flown to Johannesburg, South Africa, whereat respondent being without the necessary entry documents was arrested and detained. Sequel to his arrest and detention by the South African authorities, respondent lost his brief case containing twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) and other personal effects. He was also subsequently deported to Nigeria. Respondent/cross-appellant’s claim as indorsed on the writ and contained in his statement of claim was informed by these facts. His claim against the appellant/cross-respondent is for the sum of N5,000.000.00 being general and special damages for breach of contract particulars of which special and general damages respectively are:-

“(i) Cost of ticket i.e. $923 US Dollar or its Naira equivalent N80,000.00.

(ii) The sum of $20,000.00 US Dollar or its Naira equivalent removed from the defendant and un-refunded till date N1,800,000.00.

(iii) Costs of sundry personal effects removed by the defendant from the plaintiff N200,000.00. General damages is put at N2,920,000.00.

Respondent’s writ was taken out on 27th March, 1996 while his statement of claim against the appellants is dated 4th June, 1996.

Appellant/cross-respondent’s case is that it does not operate scheduled flight to Manzini, Swaziland. It operates only to Harare, Zimbabwe at which point passengers proceeding to Manzini are transferred to South African Airlines. Appellant has denied being in breach of the agreement to convey the respondent to his final destination. It also contends that the contract between it and the respondent is governed by the provisions of the Warsaw Convention as amended at the Harare in 1955. In essence, appellant’s case is that respondent had the duty to procure transit and or regular visas and its only responsibility to the respondent being that of a Carrier. The appellant has contended it cannot be held responsible for the action of South African Authorities of arresting and detaining the respondent who has been fully informed by the appellant to acquire all necessary travel documents.

Respondent testified for himself while appellant called one witness. In its judgment, the trial court found for the respondent in part. Appellant was adjudged to be in breach of the contract with the respondent. It has been ordered to pay $923 dollars or its naira equivalent of N800,000.00 as special damages and N500,000.00 general damages. Respondent’s claim for $20,000.00 (twenty thousand US Dollars) or its naira equivalent as well as N20,000.00 being cost of sundry personal effects were refused.

Being dissatisfied with the lower court’s judgment, parties have filed their respective notices of appeal and cross-appeal.

Parties have also filed and exchanged briefs of arguments for and against the two appeals.

In the appellant/cross-respondent’s brief, the following two issues have been formulated as having arisen for the determination of its appeal:-

“(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in awarding general damages of N500,000.00 having regard to the nature of the plaintiff/respondent’s claim in the court below (being one of carriage by air) and having regard to his earlier findings in the same judgment.

(2) Whether the award of special damages of N80,000.00 by the court below as the refund of the cost of the plaintiff/respondent’s Airway ticket was right having regard to the weight of evidence adduced before the court below and the provisions of the Warsaw Convention, 1929 as amended at the Hague 1955.”