Emirates Airline V. Uzoaku Kenechukwu Ngonadi (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Respondent, a student at a Canadian University, purchased a return ticket to Canada from the Appellant through a registered travel agency in Nigeria-Bits Travel and Tours Ltd.,in the sum of N200,425.00. She was issued a ticket with Reference No. EDTMDF on the 27th May 2008, and had no problems boarding the Appellant’s aircraft on the 29th of May, 2008 to Canada via Dubai. However, her return trip on the 22nd of December, 2008 was a different story.

She arrived at the Pearson Airport in Canada and was duly checked in. After airport security screening and passport control protocols, she proceeded to board the aircraft with other passengers, but it was at the point of entering the aircraft that an official of the Appellant denied her entry on the ground that she did not have a proper paper ticket to enable her return back to Lagos.

She explained to the official that the ticket was purchased in Nigeria and was the same ticket she had used for the first trip from Lagos-Dubai-Canada, but he insisted she must be escorted out of the airport by security officials. She had to take a taxi to and pay for her accommodation in Ontario, Canada.

She reported to the Appellant at its Canadian Office, and when it failed to take any steps, her Lawyers – Messrs. Ricky Tarfa & Co., wrote a letter dated 6/1/2009 to the Appellant at its Nigeria Office; the last four paragraphs reads –

“We have carefully chronicled the above facts to give you a complete picture of the circumstances in which our client was denied to travel by officials of your airline despite having a valid and subsisting ticket and thereby exposing her and her family to considerable expense, trauma and hardship. It is important to note that our client being 18 years of age was put in a very difficult position as a result of the acts of your officials. It is consequent upon the above that we have our client’s instruction to demand for the immediate payment of the sum of N5,000,000 only by you being the value of her ticket, taxi fares, payment for an apartment as well as the risk, emotional, physical and psychological shock suffered by both our client as well as her family and occasioned by the actions of your officials. Should you fail to respond to this demand within 14 days of this letter, we have our client’s further instruction to issue a writ against you and seek further legal redress including damages. We believe you will take steps to redress this demand accordingly”.

In a reply dated 10/2/2009, it’s Finance and Admin Manager wrote that the matter had been forwarded to the “Customer Affairs Dept. in Dubai for their immediate investigation. They will get back to you”. Not hearing from them, her lawyers wrote a reminder dated 20/4/2009, wherein they indicated that –

“Since we cannot wait indefinitely for your clients, we are constrained to by this letter to give to your clients 7 days’ notice of our intention to seek legal redress against your client and also claim for damages on behalf of our client”.

The Appellant’s Lawyers – Messrs. Giwa Osagie & Co., replied the Respondent’s Lawyers – Messrs. Ricky Tarfa & Co.; part of the letter dated 6/7/2009, reads –

“Our client has informed us that Miss Uzoaku Ngonadi [the Respondent] did not have her paper ticket with her at the point of boarding the aircraft . The Emirates agent at the check in counter mistakenly checked [her] in without her paper ticket, and issued her two boarding passes. One of the boarding passes was for the Toronto-Dubai leg of the flight while the other was for the Dubai-Lagos leg. At the boarding gate, a member of Emirates staff noticed that [her] boarding pass did not state her ticket number. The staff then asked [her] for her paper ticket, which she could not produce. Emirates staff at the airport offered to help [her] call her hall of residence in the event that she forgot the ticket there; she declined to have the call made. Being sympathetic to her plight, the staff asked her to buy another ticket to enable her board the flight and she could sort the issue of the missing ticket on her arrival in Lagos. [She] insisted that she would not buy another ticket. After delaying the flight for nearly 15 minutes on account of one passenger, Emirates had no other option than to offload [her] luggage and allow the plane takeoff without her”.

The Appellant’s Lawyers concluded the said letter of 6/7/2009, as follows –

“You may be aware that it is standard practice in the airline industry to refuse carriage to anyone who cannot produce a valid ticket for the flight. In the light of the above, it is our client’s position that it is not liable for the inconveniences suffered by Miss Uzoaku for its refusal to carry her. However, this does not prelude your client from applying for a voluntary refund of the cost of the unused part of her ticket upon presenting the requisite proof of purchase. See Articles 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 4.2.5. and 10.2 of the Emirates Conditions of Carriage”.

Convinced that it had – “breached its responsibilities to her as covered by the terms of the ticket with Reference No. EDTMDF”, the Respondent filed a Suit against the Appellant at the Federal High Court, Lagos, wherein she claimed –

(i) The sum of N200,245.00 for breach of the terms of contract of carriage of passenger by air as contained in ticket with reference EDTMDT being the total sum the Plaintiff used to purchased the ticket with reference EDTMDT from the Defendant.