No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Over 20 years ago, the Federal High Court was created. It is today the only Court with jurisdiction in matters relating to admiralty in Nigeria. This has, however, not been without some teething problems. Disputes arose over what matters fell within the admiralty jurisdiction of the courts and also as to which courts had admiralty jurisdiction. The recent Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree of 1991 addresses these issues by providing a comprehensive local code in line with the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-going Ships, 1952. This article traces the development of the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and examines the scope of its jurisdiction today.
1 See Cap. 27 of Volume XI of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos, 1958.
2 See pp. 501–502 of Volume XI of the Revised Laws of Nigeria, 1948.
3 Although a Supreme Court for the Colony of Lagos had existed since 1863, it was not until 1933 that the Courts jurisdiction applied to the whole of the Protectorate. See Supreme Court (Amendment) Ordinance, 1933, No. 46 of 1933.
4 See s. 10 Federal Supreme Court (General Provisions) Act, Cap. 68. Revised Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos 1958, Vol. III.
5 Sees. 1(1) of the 1962 Act.
6 Emphasis mine.
7 1973 1 All N.L.R. (Part 2) 208 at 221.Google Scholar
8 American International Insurance Company v. Ceekay Traders Ltd. [1981] N.S.C. Vol. II 65.Google Scholar
9 (1983) 6 SC 158.Google Scholar
10 See the landmark case of Savannah Bank v. Pan Atlantic Shipping & Anor. [1987] N.S.C. Vol. III 1 for a full exposition on the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal High Courts.Google Scholar See also Okwechime, Vincent M., ‘The true scope of the admiralty jurisdiction in Nigeria’, (1986) 17 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 4, 567.Google Scholar
11 The yuri Maru [1927] A.C. 906.Google Scholar
12 Ibid.
13 See Fas Brothers Ltd. v. Marine Merchants (Nigeria) Ltd. [1978] Vol. 1 N.S.C. 401.Google Scholar See also Dr Owen Adikibi v. Nigerian National Shipping Line [1987] Vol. III N.S.C. 152 where the FHC held that the Hague/Visby Rules nor the English Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1971, apply to Nigeria.Google Scholar
14 See The WATAGA, Swabey, 167.
15 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65 s. 6.
16 Maritime Law (3rd ed.), London, 1989, 92. In Nigeria the equivalent amending legislation is 1991 Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree.Google Scholar
17 See Vamos Navigation Limited v. Ojomo & Another [1976] N.S.C. Vol. 1 306 at 313.Google Scholar
18 Anchor Ltd. v. The Owners of The Ship Eleni 1956 N.S.C.C. 16.Google Scholar
19 The Burns [1907] P 137 at 149.Google Scholar
20 Maritime Law, above, n. 16, 92.
21 Mercantile Merchant Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. E. R. Tucker & Ors. [1978] N.S.C. Vol. 1 428.Google Scholar
22 The Rena [1979] Q.B. 377 at 405.Google Scholar
23 The Parlement Beige (1880) 14 P.D. 197.Google Scholar
24 S. 24(2) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree, 1991.
25 S. 1(i)(j) Administration of Justice Act, 1956.
26 S. 1(i)(k).
27 S. 1(i)(l). See also Lever Brother Mgeria Ltd. v. Mgeria Airways Ltd. [1990] N.S.C. Vol. III 614.Google Scholar
28 The Leliegracht [1988] N.S.C. 372 Vol. III.Google Scholar See also Patterson Steamships Ltd. v. Robin Hood Mills Ltd. (1937) 5 LL.R 33;Google ScholarLennards Carrying Co. Ltd. v. Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd. [1914] 1 K.B. 419.Google Scholar
29 The Leligracht, per Mohammed, J., at 381.Google Scholar
30 [1987] N.S.C. Vol. III 82.Google Scholar
31 See Queen v. City of London Court [1982] 1 Q.B.D. 273, 294.Google Scholar
32 See Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd. v. Leoentis Technical Company Ltd. [1992] 5 N.W.L.R. 674Google Scholar at 698 per Nneameka-Agu, J.S.C. See also American International Insurance Co. Ltd v. Ceekqy Traders Ltd. (1981) 5 S.C. 81.
33 Dissenting opinion of Nnaemeka-Agu, J.C.A., upheld by the Supreme Court in A.M.O. Akinsanya v. United Bank For Africa Ltd. [1986] N.S.C. Vol. II 515 at 524.Google Scholar
34 Per Bello, J.S.C., in Nasaralm Enterprises Ltd. v. Arab Bank (Nig.) Ltd. [1986] N.S.C. Vol. II 561 at 572.Google Scholar
35 S. 2(1).
36 S. 5 Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894/1962.
37 S.2(2)(a)(i).
38 S.2(2)(a)(ii).
39 S.2(2)(a)(iii).
40 S.2(2)(a)(iv).
41 S.2(2)(b).
42 S.2(2)(c).
43 S.2(2)(d).
44 The Ripon City (1878) P 226 at 141 per Gorrel Barnes, J.
45 The Bold Buccleugh (1851) 7 Moo. P.C. 267.Google Scholar
46 This restriction is rendered nurgutory by s. 5(4) of the Decree which enables the arrest of a sister ship under certain circumstances whether or not the claim gives rise to a maritime lien.
47 Emphasis mine.
48 Carriage of Goods By Sea (12th ed.), Vol. 2 para 1383, 1172.Google Scholar
49 N.S.C. Vol. II 339.Google Scholar
50 See ss. 3(2) and (4) of the 1956 Act.
51 Emphasis mine.
52 Emphasis mine.
53 See dicta in The Eschersheim [1977] 2 Lloyds Rep. 1.Google Scholar
54 N.S.C. Vol. II 469.Google Scholar
55 [1963] 1 Lloyds L.R. 63.Google Scholar
56 [1977] 3 W.L.R. 778.Google Scholar
57 See also the English case of The Andrea Ursula [1971] 1 Lloyds Rep. 145 where the plaintiff ship repairers who had repaired the Andrea Ursula at the request of the demise charterers and who had claimed the cost of repairs under section 1(1)(n) of the 1956 Act were held to be entitled to proceed by an action in rem against the ship on the basis that at the time when the action was brought the demise charterers were beneficial owners as respects all the shares therein.
58 [1985] N.S.C. Vol. II 314.Google Scholar
59 See s. 2(3)(a) above.
60 Above, n. 30, at 475.
61 Dr Omololu Sayombo v. The Owners of the Vessel MV Veronique (unreported) FHC/L/CS/170/92.
62 [1957] 2 All E.R. 374.Google Scholar See also Savannah Bank v. Pan Atlantic Shipping & Transport Agencies Ltd. at 1.
63 Akinseye v.Ekiyor Vol. 1 N.S.C. 342.Google Scholar
64 African Container Express v. The Tourist Company Vol. 3 N.S.C. 268.Google Scholar See also West African Shipping Agency (Nig.) Ltd. v. Nablico Ltd. (unreported) Suit No. FHC/L/62/86.
65 Allison Fisheries Ltd. (Owners of F/T Saadiah “s” v. Major Ohm Eyo Onyund and The Vessel M.V. Enobong (unreported) FHC/L/75/88.
66 See Mrs Funmilayo Baderin (Trading under the Name and Style of Kunle Funnmi Enterprises) v. Owners of the Nikos A. (unreported) FHC/L/CS/214/92.
67 Ming Ren Shipping and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Amatemeso Shipping Agencies Ltd. Vol. 1 N.S.C. 462.Google Scholar
68 Joseph Eustace Fernando & Ors v. Owners of M. V. Rhodian Trader, above, n. 49.