INTERCOTRA LTD. V. CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY ASSOCIATION LTD.

• Pages: 91-95

INTERCOTRA LTD. V. CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY ASSOCIATION LTD. 91

INTERCOTRA LTD. V. CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY

ASSOCIATION LTD.

CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY ASSOCIATION LTD. PLAINTIFFS

V

1.

INTERCOTRA LIMITED

2.

DAVID NKANA

3.

PATRICK ANELE



DEFENDANTS

4.

ADOLPHUS ENWEREZOR

5.

FRANCIS IHENACHO

IN RE

INTERCOTRA LIMITED



1ST DEFENDANT/APPELLANTS

V

CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY

ASSOCIATION LTD.



PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 166/1967

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

21st March, 1969.

Commercial Law - Bailments - Warehousemen not common carriers as incidental

to their business but bailees - Onus on bailee to establish goods in his care

not lost through his negligence not discharged.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether warehousemen, who aid some customers in transporting goods from

the wharf to their warehouse, can be regarded as common carriers.

2.

Whether it is necessary for bailees to prove proper care for due security of

goods in their care in an action for loss of goods due to negligence.

FACTS:

During the course of duty as warehousemen, some goods of the plaintiff were

lost. The plaintiff then sued the 1st defendant as common carriers or in the alter-

native as bailees for damages. The High Court held that the 1st defendants were

common carriers and were liablo. The 1st defendant appealed.

HELD:

1. Upon the facts of this case, the 1st defendants were carrying on business as

warehousemen; the transportation of goods from the customs wharf to their

warehouse was purely ancillary and incidental to their business, and they did

not profess to the public their readiness to carry for any one who wishes to

engage their services and was prepared to pay for their charges.

Consequently, the Judge was clearly in error in coming to the conclusion that

the 1st defendants were common carriers.