Isc Services Ltd. V. Genak Continental Ltd. & Anor. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

GALINJE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Dan Abutu, J. of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, which was delivered on the 30th of January, 2001.

The first respondent herein who was the plaintiff at the lower court claimed against the appellant and the 2nd respondent, the following reliefs:

1. Against the 1st defendant a declaration of the court that the 1st defendant was negligent in the issuance of the Import Duty Report (Henceforth to be referred to as IDR) NO. ISC 0400040/001 dated 12th February 1998, especially in describing the plaintiff’s cargo in column 21 of the said IDR as ‘other waters containing sweetners/flavours in column 22 in inflating the cost & freight value of the cargo to N1,693,446.00 in column 23; in negligently placing the plaintiff’s cargo under HS Code 2202.9000 in column 24; in arbitrary (sic) fixing the rate % (percentage) of duty to 100% and under column 25 of the said IDR fixing the duty payable on plaintiff’s cargo as N1,693,446.00.
2. A Declaration by the court that the plaintiff imported as against the first defendant’s IDR No. ISC 0400040/01; 3000 cartons of merry non-alcoholic grape juice; that the C & F value of the cargo is N948,000.00 that under the Custom and Excise Tariff etc consolidation Decree No.4 of 1995 and Pre-Shipment of Imports Decree No. 11 of 1996, the plaintiff’s cargo falls under code 2009.6000 which attracts 55% duty on the FOB value of the goods.

2(a) A Declaration that the defendants are bound by law to charge duty only on the FOB value of the goods and not on the CIF of same.

2(b) A Declaration that the FOB value of the goods, the subject matter of this suit being USD7,800.00 equivalent of N620,412.00 that the 55% of same is N341,226.60.

3. An Order of the court directing the 2nd defendant or its agents or privies to accept from the plaintiff the sum of N341,226.60 being the 55% of the FOB value of the goods as full and final duty payable over the plaintiff’s cargo – 3000 merry non-alcoholic juice as contained in the whole shipping documents, the subject matter of this suit.
4. An Order of the court against the defendants, jointly and severally awarding special damages in favour of the plaintiff as follows:
5. Demurrage paid to the Shipping Company – was a Delmas Nigeria Ltd. covering from 17th February, 1998 (when the goods arrived) till 6th November 1998 – N1,348,467.70.
6. Nigerian Port Authority charges N1,500 per day from 17/2/98 till the date of clearance of the cargo from the port 11/11/98… N486, 188.49.
7. Accumulated bank interest on the sum of N948,000.00 being the invoice value of the cargo at the rate of 21% per month from 10/12/97 till 11/11/98 when the cargo was discharged/cleared from Apapa Wharf N2,189,830.00.
8. The sum of N3,552,000 being the loss of profit by the plaintiff resulting from the cancellation of the supply orders by A. S. SAAB Nigeria Ltd… N3, 552,000.
9. General damages of N5,000,000.00

Total 12,576,536.19.

6. Cost of the action.

Pleadings having been filed and exchanged, the case was set down for trial at the lower court. The 1st respondent here who was the plaintiff at the lower court called only one witness and tendered several documents after which it closed its case. The appellant and the 2nd respondent herein were 1st and 2nd defendants at the lower court. They jointly called six witnesses, tendered several documents, after which they also closed their case.

After counsel’s addresses and in a considered judgment, the 1st and 2nd claims of the 1st respondent herein were granted.

The court also awarded to the 1st respondent the sum of N1,834,556.19 as compensation for the expenses incurred on demurrage plus port charges and N3,552,000.00 as damages for loss of profit.

The sum of N10,000.00 was awarded as general damages.

Not satisfied with the judgment, the appellant who was the 1st defendant at the lower court filed this appeal against the decision the trial court. Initially two grounds of appeal were filed for the appellant.

However, with leave of this court nineteen (19) additional grounds of appeal were filed.

The 1st respondent who was the plaintiff disagreed with certain aspect of the judgment and also cross-appealed on two grounds of appeal.

The facts that gave rise to this appeal are aptly set out in the briefs of argument of parties, albeit with different variations to suit their respective cases. However, the facts as I understood them are as follows: