ALLIED TRADING CO. LTD. V. G.B.N. LINE

• Pages: 933-942

ALLIED TRADING CO. LTD. V. G.B.N. LINE



933

ALLIED TRADING CO. LTD. V. G.B.N. LINE

5

ALLIED TRADING CO. LTD

V

10



G.B.N. LINE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

IRIKEFE,



J.S.C.

ESO,



J.S.C.

15



COKER,



J.S.C.

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

28th June, 1985

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 18

2

/

1

984

20



Shipping Law - Bill of Lading - Stipulation that where issuer not the owner

or demise charterer of ship, owner or demise charterer liable and not agent/owner

- Sufficiency of disclosure of principals existence notwithstanding

non-incorporation of charter-party in bill of lading - Whether action by holder

of bill against issuer for damages for short delivery proper

25

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a stipulation in a bill of lading that the issuer (of the bill) is not the owner

or demise charterer of the ship and that it shall take effect only as a contract

between the consignee and the owner or demise charterer as principal (even

30





though the charter-party as between the owners and the issuer as time charterer

was not incorporated into the bill of lading) is sufficient notice of a principal's

existence so as to protect such issuer (agent) from any action arising from a

failure to perform the contract.

2.

What is the test ior determining who the ship owner is in a carriage of goods

35



by sea contract?

3.

In a suit on a Bill of Lading does the Bill of Lading put the consignee/claimant

on an inquiry as to the existence of another party who from the terms of the

Bill of Lading should bear any and all liabilities for loss of or damage to goods

carried under the Bill of Lading')

40 FACTS:

The plaintiff sued the defendants for short-delivery of goods carried by sea.

There was a charter-party between the owners of the carrying vessel and the de-

fendants as time charterers which was not incorporated in the Bill of Lading issued

by defendants but the Bill of Lading stipulated that the vessel owner or charterer

45





by demise shall be liable as principal and not the issuer of the bill. The plaintiff

as holder of notice of the principal's existence failed to ascertain the vessel's real

owner or demise charterer.

The trial court held that the defendant is a proper party and can be sued. The

defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the ground that plaintiff had suffi-

50





cient notice of the principal's existence, i.e. the vessel owner, and that they and

not the defendants should be sued for the short delivery. The Court held that the

defendant could not be sued. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.