The Respondent (referred to in this judgment as "the Plaintiff) a registered Nigerian company carrying on business of exporting of sea foods, entered into an agreement with the Maersk Nigeria Ltd., the 3rd Defendant, to ship 1,202 cartons of frozen Atlantic Gold Shrimps valued at US$71,516.50 in a vessel called Christian Maersk, owned by the 2nd Defendant from Lagos Port to Algeciras Port in Spain. The consignee of the Shrimps was Toko Fish Corporation, Panama. The Shrimps were of good consumable quality when they were shipped from Lagos. They were sealed in a container under acceptable temperature of 18°c/20°c. The goods were carried under a bill of lading issued in Lagos. The Spanish Health Authority issued two reports on the condition of the shrimps. In the first, issued on 14th February, 1994, it was stated that the shrimps were "not suitable in the first inspection due to abnormal odour, unsatisfactory appearance and high volatile vitrogen." In the second, issued on 4th March, 1994, it was stated: "Not suitable (second inspection) due to abnormal odour, unsatisfactory appearance and melanoies."

It was common ground that the shrimps became bad. What was in dispute was when the shrimps deteriorated. The Plaintiff claimed that it was during the period of carriage by sea, while the Defendants asserted that the shrimps deteriorated after their arrival in Spain and because by the nature of the shrimps they should have been collected within 2 days but were not collected more than 30 days after arrival. The trial Chief Judge, Belgore, C. J., preferred the Plaintiff's version and found that the Defendants have failed to discharge the burden on them proving that the cargo had arrived in good condition. After thus disposing of the main issue of fact essential to the liability of the Carrier, the Learned Chief Judge turned to questions of law which were essentially on the question of quantum of compensation, which he resolved in favour of the Plaintiff. In the result, he entered judgment against the Defendants for the rest of the claim after rejecting the 3rd and 4th heads of claim. He dismissed the Defendants' counter-claim for the cost of repatriation of the cargo back to Nigeria and return of the container to the Defendants.

The Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed their appeal and confirmed the decision of the Federal High Court. This appeal is from the decision of the Court of Appeal.