Under a Bill of Lading No. 423 of 13th June, 1989 issued by the first defendant company, the said defendant acknowledged (as was the fact) that there had been shipped on board their vessel "M/V GONGOLA HOPE" in good order and condition 6 pallets of Aluminum Billets for carriage and delivery to the plaintiff in Lagos.
3.
The plaintiff was at all material times the owner of the said 6 pallets of Aluminum Billets or the endorsees of the said Bill of Lading to whom the property in the said goods passed by reason of the said endorsement.
4.
(4) On or about the 28th day of June, 1989, the said M/V GONGOLA HOPE arrived at the Tin Can Island Port, bearing the aforesaid packages of Aluminum Billets.
5.
In breach of the contract contained in or evidence by the said Bills or Lading and/or in breach of the duty as carries for reward, and/or negligence in and about the carriage of the said cargo the defendants, their servants and/or agents failed to deliver the entire consignment to the plaintiff but rather short-delivered the said cargo by 3 Bundles."
The appellants filed a motion praying the court to strike out and/or dismiss the suit on the ground that the respondent not being a party to the Bill of Lading on which the claim is based has no locus standi to institute or maintain this action.
The bill lading was exhibited by the appellants in their affidavit in support of the motion. This consignee is Progress Bank of Nigeria Ltd. Although the respondent appeared in the column of "Notify Party" the bill of lading was endorsed to it by the consignee under the signature of the consignee. The respondent in turn re-endorsed the bill of lading to I.A.L. (Nigeria) Enterprises Ltd. It was the contention of the appellants that the property in the Cargo is no more in the respondent as it has been endorsed to I.A.L (Nigeria) Enterprises Ltd, hence the respondent has no lucus standi to commence an action based on the bill of lading. That the respondent having pleaded the bill of lading the court can look at the document to determine the rights of the parties. The Federal High Court dismissed the motion and ordered the appellants to proceed to answer the respondent's allegations.
Dissatisfied with the ruling the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos.
