Justice Friday Ogazi of the Federal High Court, Lagos, has dismissed a suit filed by Ashaka Cement Limited (a member of the Lafarge Africa Group) against a logistics company, JBV Logistics Limited (Formerly known as Jodphur Business Ventures Limited), for being unmeritorious.
In dismissing the Admiralty matter; Which involved the delivery and subsequent installation of machinery & equipments, for the flag off of a Power plant to be commissioned by the former President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration in Gombe State, the court resolved against the plaintiff; and held inter alia that Ashaka Cement Limited failed to join the necessary contracted party, Runh Power Corporation Limited China, to the suit.
Ashaka Cement Limited represented by Bloomfield LP had dragged the logistics firm and five others before the court in a suit marked FHC/L/CS/1725/2023, and asked for the following reliefs; A declaration that being the named Consignee and the Bill of Lading issued by the Carrier (Ocean Network Express Pre Led), the Plaintiff is the bona fide owner of the consignment (that had machinery, spares, supplies and other items) the Plaintiff is entitled to take delivery and custody of the Supplies from the Defendants in the two (2) containers with registration numbers SEGU4899547 and TCNUSO70028 brought inte Nigeria (via Apapa port, Lagos) on board the MV Navios Magnoliea on June 24, 2023.
“A declaration that the Defendants unilateral detention, diversion and consequential failure to deliver the consignments (that is machinery, spares, supplies and other item) in the two (2) containers with registration numbers SEGU4899547 and TCNU5070428 brought into Nigeria (via Apapa port, Lagos) on board the MV Navios Magnolia on June 28, 2023 to the Plaintiff’s (or anywhere nominated by the Plaintiff, including its premises) amounts to unlawful detention of goods/detinue.
“An order directing the defendants, whether by themselves, their agents, assigns, servants or privies, or anyone acting through them howsoever having custody of the consignments (that is machinery, spares, supplies and other items) in the two (2) containers with registration numbers SECU4899547 and TCNU5070428 brought into Nigeria (via Apapa port, Lagos) on board the MV NAVIOS MAGNOLIA on June 28, 2023 to deliver immediate possession of same to the Plaintiff being the bona fide owner of the Supplies.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants herein, whether by themselves agents, assignees, servants or privies, anyone acting through them howsoever designated, from disturbing, tampering or dealing with the Supplies in the two (2) containers with registration numbers SEGU4899547 and TCNU5070428 brought into Nigeria (via Apapa port Lagos) on board the MV NAVIOS MAGNOLIA on June 28, 2023.
“An order directing the defendants to indemnify the Plaintiff against the detention/demurrage charges and all other costs incurred by for to be incurred) the Plaintiff on account of the Defendants delay, failure, neglect and/or refusal to deliver the Supplies in the two (2) containers with registration numbers SEGU4899647 and TC:NUS5070428 brought into Nigeria (via Apapa port Lagos) on board the MV NAVIOS MAGNOLIA on June 28, 2023 to the Plaintiff.
“An order directing the defendants to pay the sum of N10 million to the Plaintiff as damages for unlawfully withholding the consignments (that is machinery spares, supplies and other items) in the two (2) containers with registration numbers SEGU4899547) and TCNUS07T0O1248 brought into Nigeria (vin Apapa port Lagos) on board the MV NAVIOS MAGNOLIA on June 28, 2023.
Pre-judgment monthly interest at three percent (3%) from July 13, 2023 until judgment in this Suit is delivered. 8. Post-judgment monthly interest at ten percent (10%) from the dato of judgment until final liquidation.
“Cost of this Suit at N10 million.”
But the logistics firm through its Lead counsel Obafemi Oluwole, Esq and other lawyers filed a counter affidavit in opposition to the suit and urged the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit.
Specifically, the defendants lawyers argued that their clients as agents of the contractors, and the contractors being disclosed principals has the capacity to be sued in the event that any cause of action arises as their clients were only acting on the instruction of the contractors to change the delivery destination to the warehouse of the 3rd to 5th Defendants, hence their clients do not have any answer as they are not liable.
They added that their clients cannot be held liable for the state of the goods which had at material times been in the possession of the 3rd to 5th defendants since the 16th of July, 2023.
The lawyers therefore urged the court to dismiss the suit with substantial cost.
The 3rd to 6th defendants did not enter appearance or file any defence to the suit.
Meanwhile, during the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff abandoned five issues earlier formulated and raised new issues. Which was vehemently opposed by the 1st & 2nd defendants accordingly.
Justice Ogazi in his judgment on the suit held that: “….. since the Contractor whom liability is contractually placed on by virtue of the wordings of the Contract is not joined in this suit, he is unable to grant reliefs, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 against the defendants on record. The reliefs are refused against them.
“Consequent upon the above, the mains issues formulated by plaintiff is answered in the negative and most of the reliefs sought except relief 1 are hereby refused.
“This case is dismissed in its entirety against the 1st and 2nd Defendants.”
The judge however held that the plaintiff is entitled to relief 1, and granted relief 4 is granted for preservatory purpose against the 4th and 5th defendants who are adjudged to be in possession of the cargoes.
Follow us on all social media platforms @dailyquery for news and analyses around the globe.
