MT. Oryx Trader & Ors v. Wrist Shipping Supply (2025)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, Coram: Dongban Mensem (President Court of Appeal), Festus Ogbuinya, JCA (as he then was) and Abubakar Umar, JCA (as he then was) delivered on 31/3/2023 which affirmed the judgment of the trial court delivered on 22/7/22 by D. E. Osiagbor J.

The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:

At the trial Federal High Court, the appellants had taken out originating summons asking for the following reliefs:

(a) An order that the arrest of the applicants’ vessel MT. Oryx Trader by the respondent’s caveat against the release of the vessel dated the 29th of April, 2020, in suit FHC/L/CS/223/2020 is wrongful, the respondent not being a party to the action.

(b) An order for the payment of the sum of USD3,464,800 Dollars by the respondent to the applicants for damages for the wrongful arrest of the applicants vessel MT. Oryx Trader in suit no. FHC/L/CS/223/2020, by virtue of the undertaking to indemnify the applicants for the wrongful arrest of the vessel MT. Oryx Trader given by the respondent in their caveat against release of the applicants vessel MT. Oryx Trader tiled by the respondent on the 29th of April, 2020 to 9th of July, 2021.

(c) An order for payment of interest at 21% of the judgment sum from the 29th of April, 2020 until the judgment debt is liquidated.

The case of the appellants as applicants at trial was a demand for damages in the sum of USD3,464,800.00 for the wrongful arrest of the appellants’ vessel MT ORYX TRADER. It is not disputed that the respondent filed a caveat against the release of the vessel. Neither is there any controversy that the respondent entered into an indemnity in the events of wrongful caveat.

The crux of the appellants’ claim is that the caveat as filed by the respondent against the release of the appellants’ vessel is an arrest which is wrongful as the respondent is not a party to the suit. It is on this basis that the appellants’ claims the sum of USD3,464,800.00 for damages for the wrongful arrest of the appellants’ vessel MT ORYX TRADER. The appellants’ equally claimed that its vessel MT ORYX TRADER had earlier been released by the court in a pending suit.

The trial court held that a natural or artificial person can file a caveat against the release of a vessel and in this instance, the caveat was valid.

The Court of Appeal also found for the respondent and held that since the 1st appellant was already under arrest prior to the caveat, thus the damages claimed had no nexus with the respondent’s entry of a caveat and the court below refused to penalize the Respondent in damages for the unproved unlawful or wrongful detention. The lower court affirmed the findings of the trial court. Hence this appeal.

The appellants’ counsel, Mr. Paul Amaran, Esq., distilled the following issues for determination:

1. Whether section 13 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, provided that for the respondent to be liable for damages for the arrest of the appellants vessel, there must be a finding of court to the fact that the arrest was wrongful?
2. Whether by the arrest of the appellants vessel by the respondent caveat against release of the appellants vessel dated 29th of April, 2020, the respondent is not bound to indemnity the appellants for the arrest of the appellants vessel?
3. Whether the caveat against release of the appellants vessel MT. Oryx Trader did not expire after one year and the vessel was released from arrest after the expiration?

Mr. Adedoyin Afun of counsel to the respondent settled essentially the same issues but differently couched for the determination of this court. After reading the record, and the briefs, I have crystalized a lone issue for determination as follows:

“Whether the filing of a caveat by the respondent against the release of the 1st appellant vessel did not constitute wrongful arrest to warrant the payment of damages by the respondent to the appellants.”