National Maritime Authority V. Marine Management Associates Inc. & ANOR (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ISA AYO SALAMI, J.C.A.

The plaintiffs claimed against the defendant by an amended writ of summons as well as a statement of claim as follows-

A DECLARATION that the “INSPECTION/VETTING AGREEMENT” made between the Nigerian NATIONAL MARITIME AUTHORITY and the plaintiffs with effect from 1st of March, 1996 for a period of Ten (10) years remains valid binding and enforceable as between the parties thereto.

A DECLARATION that the purported “SUSPENSION” of the contract for vetting/inspection service by the Defendant’s herein -the Nigerian NATIONAL MARITIME Authority by letter dated 10th December, 1999 is ultra vires the said contract and the National Maritime Authority itself, and is thereby invalid, null, void and of no legal effect whatsoever. The sum of US$ 4,875,333.15 (Four Million, Eight Hunred and Seventy Five Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty Three Dollars Fifteen Cents) or its (Naira equivalent at the prevailing rate) being the financial loss and damage accruing by reason of the Defendant’s breach of the inspection/vetting Agreement, particulars of which are specified in the report of Ajibola Ogunsola & Co. COST, EXPENSES AND LEGAL FEES for the prosecution of this cause in the sum of $500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars only EXEMPLARY AND AGORA VATED GENERAL DAMAGES in the sum of Five Million United States Dollars (US$ 5,000,000.00)

At the trial, evidence was adduced by both sides. The plaintiff called two witnesses while the defendants called two. Thereafter addresses of counsel were taken. Learned trial judge accepted the plaintiff’s case by awarding the special damages of US$ 4,298,066.00 and aggravated general damages of US$ 50,000.00.

The defendant was unhappy with the decision and being aggrieved caused a notice of appeal containing eight grounds of appeal to be brought. Consequently briefs of argument were filed and exchanged at the appellant’s brief as well as Respondents’ and Appellant’s Reply briefs of argument.

At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for defendant (hereinafter referred to as appellant) adopted and relied on Appellant’s as well as Appellant’s Reply briefs. He, in addition, made oral submissions in elucidation of the briefs.

On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as respondents) adopted and placed reliance on the Respondents’ brief of argument. She also made oral speech in elaboration of the brief of argument.

The appellant formulated the following 6 issues in its brief of argument.

“3.01 Was the court below right when it awarded the sum of US$ 4,298.066 to Respondents as special damages for their alleged loss of profit whereas the evidence adduced by Respondents and relied upon by the court below was legally inadmissible evidence?

3.02 Can the judgment of the lower court be sustained having regard to the probative value of exhibit “A” upon which respondents built their case?

3.03 Did the Respondents adduce any oral evidence to support their claim for loss of profit for which the court below awarded the sum of US$ 4,298,066.00 to Respondents.

3.04 Was it right for the court below to have relied on exhibit “H” as evidence of Respondents’ lost profit in awarding special damages in the sum of US$ 4,298,066.00 to Respondents?

3.05 Was it right for the court below to award the sum of US$ 50,000.00 to Respondents as “aggravated general damages” arising from Appellant’s breach of contract whereas that Court had earlier awarded the sum of US$ 4,298,066.00 to Respondents being special damages for loss suffered by Respondents as a result of Appellant’s alleged breach of the same contract.