n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Akinrimisi V. Maersk NIG. Ltd (2013) CLR 3(b) (SC)

Judgement delivered on March 8th 2013

Brief

  • Case set for mention
  • Order made suo motu
  • Interlocutory applications
  • Slow pace of adjudication in Nigeria

Facts

This is an appeal against the decision of the court of appeal Lagos Division delivered on 18/3/2004.

The Appellant who was the plaintiff at the trial Federal High Court in her statement of claim dated 11/12/98 claim the following reliefs:-

  • a
    A declaration that plaintiff is entitled to the Bill of lading in possession of the Defendants and or their agents.
  • b
    A declaration that she has effected total payment of money due on the contract and that further payment of additional money to the first and second Defendants is unjustified, unwarranted, oppressive, illegal, null and void.
  • c
    An order for the release to the plaintiff of her goods and Bill of lading immediately without payment of any demurrage charges.
  • d
    An order for specific performance of the contract by causing the first and second Defendants to fulfill and honour same by delivery to the plaintiff of all Goods and Household effects now in the custody of fourth Defendant immediately.
  • e
    An order of perpetual injunction restraining the first , second ,third and fourth Defendants and their agents, Servants and or privies from withholding or continue to withhold the Bill of Lading ; the Goods and household effects of the plaintiff now in their custody.
  • f
    An order for the payment of N5,000.0000.00 (Five Million Naira) to the plaintiff by the Defendants jointly and severally as General Damages for loss of use of the Goods and Household effects in their custody since last year.

The plaintiff’s statement of claim was later amended and the amended statement of claim was dated 4/4/2000. On 26/1/2000 on the application of the plaintiff, the trial court presided over by Okeke J, Ordered that the goods in dispute be released to the plaintiff upon the production of a bank guarantee for the sum of S5,405.94, which shall be renewable pending the determination of the case. The matter was re-assigned to another court presided by Gumel J, (as he then was) and on 16/11/2000 when the case came up, the Appellant applied for a date to hear her two pending applications, the trial court however proceeded to make an order that the goods be released to the plaintiff upon the execution a bond in the sum of S8,000.00 with two surties.

He further proceeded to set aside the earlier order made by okeke J, for the production of bulk guarantee on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction.

Dissatisfied with this Order, the 3rd defendant, UCCAS Resources Nigeria Limited, had appealed to the Court of Appeal, having sought and obtained the leave of that court. In spite of the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff again filed another application praying the court for an order for delivery of the goods in question against the 3rd defendant. The Trial Court on 11/2/2002 granted the application. The 3rd defendant was again dissatisfied by the order and appealed to the lower court. The two appeals were then Consolidated.

After hearing the parties, the lower court allowed the appeal. The two orders made by Gumel J were set aside by the lower court.

Issues

“Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right in deciding...

Read More