The plaintiff claims against the three defendants jointly and severally for the sum of N100,000.00, being special and general damages for the loss of and/or non-delivery by the defendants as common carries and bailees for rewards for short-delivery of 12 out of 66 pallets of uncoated Bond Paper carried on board the defendant's vessel. The said goods were consigned to the order of the plaintiff, as the endorsee thereof on the bill of lading No.224 Ex "Kaapetan Leonidas", arriving at the Tin Can Island Port, Apapa Lagos 0n 9/10/90. The bill of lading covering the consignment was issued by the 2nd defendant, Global Transporte Oceanico SA Inc. in favour of Savannah Bank of Nigeria Ltd. Who, in consideration for value received, endorsed it to the plaintiff. On arrival of the vessel,"Kapetan Leonidas" at the Tin Can Island Port on 9/10/90, the plaintiff handed over all the necessary shipping documents, including the aforesaid bill of lading No. 224, to its clearing agent, Musina Nigeria Ltd. with the instruction to perform the necessary Custom formalities and settle the duty to the Board of Custom and Excise

In the process of clearing the goods, the said bill of lading was given by the said Musina Nigeria Ltd. to the 3rd defendant, Nigerian Ports Authority who made a release order of the said goods to it (the clearing agent). It was at this juncture that the short-delivery was noticed. Thereupon, the plaintiff brought this action for damages for the short-delivery 12 pallets, having filed its writ of summons with the Statement of Claim, both dated 3/10/91.

Rather than answer the plaintiff's settlement of claim by filling the defendant's statement of defence, the 1st defendant, as applicant, by motion on notice to which it attached a copy of the bill of lading No.224, i.e./ by way of demurrer proceedings under order 27 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1976 Ccap.134, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, prayed the High Court to dismiss and/or strike out the plaintiffs/respondent's action on the grounds that the plaintiff, not having been named as either the consignee or endorsee of the relevant bill of lading on which their claim herein is based and/or if so named having endorsed the same to another party, has no locus standi to institute or maintain this action as presently constituted.

The learned trial Judge took arguments on the said demurrer application and in a considered Ruling delivered on 30/7/92, he granted the motion as prayed.

Dissatisfied, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. In a considered judgement, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.