C.S. & A. CO. LTD. V. MANDILAS & KARABERIS LTD.

• Pages: 306-313

C.S. & A. CO. LTD. V. MANDILAS & KARABERIS LTD.



306

could upset the damages awarded, even if we ourselves are of the view that they

are on the high sde.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed with 47 guineas costs to the respondent.

Appeal dismissed

C.S. & A. CO. LTD. V. MANDILAS & KARABERIS

LTD.

COASTAL SHIPPING AND



APPELLANTS

AGENCIES COMPANY LIMITED

V

MANDILAS AND KARABERIS LTD.



RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 388/1967

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARI KAN,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

17th October, 1969.

Mercantile Law - Shipping - Bill of Lading - Damage caused by unseaworthiness

- Implied condition of seaworthiness - Limitation of Shipowner's liability -

Scope of

ISSUES:

1.

What is the basis of the doctrine of

res ipsa loquitur?

2.

What is the general liability of a shipowner, in respect of damage caused by

the unseaworthiness of his ship?

3.

Is there an implied undertaking that a ship which carries goods is sea worthy?

FACTS:

The Plaintiffs/Respondents employed the services of the Defendants/Appellants

to transport a quantity of palm kernels abroad by sea. The Defendants/Appellants

having agreed to render this service loaded the said kernels on their lighter "Torn".

While the palm kernels were still onboard the said lighter and were being trans-

ported to the S.S. "Windsor" for shipment, the lighter sank in the lagoon with all

the cargo. The wet bags of palm kernels were later recovered and were down-

graded by the Produce Inspection Service and totally condemned for export by

the Western Region Marketing Board.

The Plaintiffs/Respondents brought an action against the Defendants/Appel-

lants claiming the sum of £3,132:6s:9d in respect of the loss incurred by them.

The Defendants/Appellants denied liability.

Thereupon the Plaintiffs/Respondents brought an action against the Defend-

ants/Appellants in the High Court, claiming:-

(i)

that there was a breach of the implied warranty that the "Tom" was seaworthy

so that the Defendants/Appellants cannot shelter behind any terms and con-

ditions of the waybill purporting to exonerate them from all liabilities.

(ii)

that the "Tom" sank because it was unseaworthy and was leaking rather badly

and that the doctrine of

res ipsa loquitur

applied.