Koiki V Magnusson (1999)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGWUEGBU, J.S.C. 

At the High Court of Lagos State holden at Lagos, the appellants claimed:-

“(a) the sum of US $894,390.00 or its Naira equivalent being damages against the Defendant for the failure of the Defendant to ship and deliver 3,948 bales of Icelandic stockfish pursuant to a letter of credit dated 1st October, 1981;

(b) compound interest on the special damages at the rate of 15% per annum from 1st January, 1982, to 31st July, 1987, and at 20% per annum from 1st August,1987 until the day of judgment;

(c) general damages in the sum of N2,000,000.00.”

Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. From the pleadings, the plaintiffs entered into a contract with the defendant and placed an order for the supply of 15,000 bales of stockfish from Iceland and the supply was to be delivered to the Nigerian National Supply Co, Ltd. This contract was entered into in 1981.

It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant shipped and delivered only 11052 bales to the Nigerian National Supply Co. Ltd, that the balance of 3,948 bales were not delivered to the Nigerian National Supply Co. Ltd., or to anyone else in Port Harcourt and that the documents alleged to have been used in shipping and delivering them were irregular and forged.

The defendant maintained that he shipped the total of 3,948 bales in two separate shipments of 2542 and 1406 bales and delivered them as requested. The plaintiffs further maintained that the defendant was not entitled to the money paid to him on those documents through his bank in Iceland.

After hearing evidence Adeyinka. J. gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs in the following terms:-

“Judgment is hereby entered for the Plaintiffs against the defendant for the special damages of $894,390 or its Naira equivalent with interest at 15% per annum from 1st day of January. 1981 to 31st day of July, 1987 and at 20% per annum from 1st August, I987 until today and N1,000,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) being general damages.”

Being dissatisfied, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. The appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed.

It is against the judgment of the court of Appeal that the plaintiffs appealed to this Court. The appeal to this Court is based on four grounds of appeal and counsel for both parties filed comprehensive briefs of argument. Mr. Adesanya, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants in his brief identified two issues or questions for determination in this appeal. They are:

“(a) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the consignment of 2542 bales of stockfish was received by the Appellant (sic) or to the Appellant’s (sic) order in Port Harcourt pursuant to the contract between the parties.

(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that from the circumstances surrounding the shipment of 1406 bales of stock fish and the conduct of the Appellant (sic), the Appellant (sic) was (sic) estopped from denying the efficacy and applicability of Exhibit PX 29.”