Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

MSL (Nig.) Ltd V. NMA (2000) CLR 8(n) (CA)

Judgement delivered on May 23rd 2003

Brief

  • Admiralty jurisdiction
  • Shipping agent
  • Demurrer

Facts

The respondent was the plaintiff at the Federal High Court, Lagos. There, it instituted an action against the appellant for recovery of the sum of US$ 31,695.00 (thirty one thousand six hundred and ninety-five US dollars) being unpaid 3% statutory levy being payable by the defendant/appellant to the respondent in respect of the appellant’s vessels that berthed at various Nigerian sea ports between 1992 and 1995. On 30/6/97 the parties were ordered to file their pleadings. Thereupon, the plaintiff/respondent filed its statement of claim to demur pursuant to the provisions of Order 27 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) and consequently filed a motion on notice dated 20/10/97 praying the lower court to dismiss the action on the under – mentioned grounds.

  • 1.
    That the defendant is only a shipping agent and carries on business as such to the various vessels, which berthed at Nigerian ports from March 1992 to December, 1995 to the knowledge and admission of the plaintiff.
  • 2.
    Shipping Agents, such as defendants, are not shipping companies as envisaged by Decree No.10 of 1989 and as such not liable to surcharge or charge tax.
  • 3.
    The defendant is only an agent of disclosed principals to the knowledge and admission of the plaintiff, and as such not liable for the acts of such principals.
  • 4.
    The plaintiffs’ claim does not disclose or show that the defendant personally has or had chargeable cargo or any vessel sailing into or berthing at Nigerian ports. Only companies which have chargeable cargo are liable to tax/surcharge under Decree No. 10 of 1987.

On 9/12/97 and 15/1/98 the lower court took arguments on the said motion and delivered its considered ruling on 27/2/98 refusing all the prayers and dismissed the application on all its grounds.

The appellant became aggrieved and dissatisfied with the lower courts ruling and on 11th January 1999 with leave of this court appealed against the ruling to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  • a.
    Whether the learned trial Judge was right to say that Section 16(3) and...
    Read More