ANCHOR LIMITED V. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP ELENI

• Pages: 16-17

16

NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1956] N.S.C.C.

ANCHOR LIMITED V. THE OWNERS OF THE

SHIP ELENI

ANCHOR LIMITED

APPLICANT

V

THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP ELENI

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. FSC 25/1956

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

FOSTER SUTTON, F.C.J.

JIBOWU,

F.J.

ABBOTT,

F.J.

29th March, 1956.

Admiralty Jurisdiction- actions in rem - in personam - arrest of a ship.

ISSUES:

1.

Under what circumstances can a party institute an Admiralty Action in rem.

2.

What is the effect of an Admiralty Action instituted as an action in personam.

FACTS:

The plaintiff brought a motion for the arrest of a ship and for it's appraisement and

sale in satisfaction of a judgment entered in the former Supreme Court, Jurisdiction

in admiralty cases had by this time been transferred to this court by S.10 of the

Federal Supreme Court (General Provisions) Ordinance, 1955. The court decided

that this action proceeded in the Supreme Court as an action in personam and not

in rem and judgment was entered against the defendants personally and that

accordingly the procedure by way of the arrest of ship was not open to the plaintiffs.

CASE REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

The Mogileff (1921) P.D. 236.

E.A. Silva

for the Applicant.

A. Mcfarlan

for the Respondents.

FOSTER SUTTON, F.C.J.

This was a motion by the plaintiff in an action

instituted in the Supreme Court for an order for the arrest of the ship Eieni, presently

lying in Lagos Harbour, and its appraisement and sale in satisfaction of a judgment

which was entered by consent in the plaintiff's favour on 8th August,1955, for the

sum of 215,891-18s-Od costs.

Mr. Silva for the applicant submitted that procedure by way of arrest of the ship

was in order since the claim

was against

the ship and, therefore, an action in rem.

for the respondents Mr Mcfarlan contended that whatever the nature of the action

when it started it ended up as an action in personam, and that the procedure by

way of arrest of the ship was not available to the applicant.

Both Counsel ultimately agreed that proceedings for the arrest of the ship were

not taken before judgment was entered.

It is apparent that a large proportion of the items mentioned in the plaintiff's par-

ticulars of claim clearly relate to necessaries supplied to the ship. In this connec-

tion it is relevant to observe, since the claim includes an item for a considerable

5

1

0

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50