Glenyork Nigeria Limited & Ors v. Panalpina World Transport Nig Limited (2025)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal No. SC.34/2008 was commenced on 14-12-2008 when the appellant herein filed a notice of appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in appeal No. CA/L/CV/413/20 allowing the appeal after holding that the suit concerns an admiralty matter and therefore, the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain it, setting aside the judgment and ruling of the High Court of Lagos State delivered on 24-9-1999 in suit No. LD/1124/97 that the subject of the suit is a simple contract of bailment and negligence, which did not relate to ship and maritime claims, that it is not an admiralty matter and is therefore within the jurisdiction of the trial court.

The parties herein have filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs.

The appellants’ brief raised the following issues for determination-

(1) “Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the appellants’ claim for damages for breach of contract and for negligence was an admiralty matter thereby vesting jurisdiction in the Federal High Court in spite of section 230(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 (now section 251(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and the decision of this court in Adelekan v. Ecu-Line NV (2006) 31 WRN 1.

(2) Whether the facts of this case as pleaded constitute a cause of action in admiralty by virtue of section 1(1)(g) and (2) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree No. 59 of 1991 so as to make the further transportation of goods already discharged from ship and delivered to customs warehouse an extension of the shipping of the goods by sea.

(3) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the decision in the case of Aluminum Manufacturing Co. Nig. Ltd v. Nigeria Ports Authority (1987) 18 NSCC (Pt. 1) 224 and P.E Ltd & Anors v. Leventis Technical Ltd (1992) 23 NSCC (Pt. 2) 228 was no longer authority on the interpretation of the provisions of sections 1(1)(g) and (2) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, No. 59 of 1991.”

The respondent’s brief raised the following issues for determination –

(1) “Whether the lower court was right in setting aside the decision of the trial court on the basis that the claim falls within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, (Grounds one and two)

(2) Whether the learned Justice of the lower court were right to have held that the trial court wrongly applied the doctrine of stare decisis in the cases cited to this case? (Ground three).”

The issues raised for determination in the respective briefs are essentially the same. Since the appeal is by the appellants, let me determine it on the basis of the issues raised for determination in their brief. I will consider all of them together as the determination of each would affect the other.

I have carefully read and considered all the arguments in all the briefs on these issues.

Let me begin the determination of the issues with a restatement of the material facts of this case as contained in the appellants’ statement of claim, the basis for the objection in lieu of demurrer that has led to this further appeal. Sometimes in 1993, the 1st appellant imported, inter alia, one large 12RK Ruston Diesel Power Engine No. IH1001B from the United Kingdom to Port Harcourt Sea Port.

The diesel engine was carried by sea to the sea port at Port Harcourt. In March 1993, the 1st appellant entered into contract with the respondent, under which the respondent agreed to carry out customs clearance of the generator and other goods at the Port Harcourt Sea Port and transport same by road to its project site at EPZ Calabar, Cross River State.