The Nigerian Supreme Court Affirms that the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court does not end upon the Discharge of Cargo from a Vessel – Glenyork (Nig.) Ltd & Anor v. Panalpina W.T. (Nig.) Ltd [2025] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1992) 363
Facts of the Case
In 1993, Glenyork (Nig.) Ltd (“Glenyork”) imported a large diesel power engine from the United Kingdom through the Port Harcourt seaport. To facilitate onward delivery to its project site in Calabar, the company engaged Panalpina W.T. (Nig.) Ltd (“Panalpina”) to handle the customs clearance and transportation of the engine and other goods to its project site. Glenyork handed over the relevant shipping documents to Panalpina and paid for the clearance and transportation.
Panalpina subsequently subcontracted the task to a third-party haulage company. During the journey, the engine sustained significant damage due to alleged negligent handling. Glenyork engaged engineers from the engine’s manufacturer in the United Kingdom to assess the damage, and a joint inspection was conducted. Based on the findings, Glenyork’s insurer (“Royal Re-Insurance”) paid the equivalent of £95,927.28 as full compensation for the loss and an additional £3,734.50 for associated professional fees.
Subsequently, Glenyork and Royal Re-insurance instituted an action at the High Court of Lagos State against Panalpina, seeking recovery of the sums paid and general damages for breach of contract and/or negligence in the carriage of the engine.
In response, Panalpina denied liability, attributing the incident to an unforeseen accident involving the trailer driver being chased by suspected thieves. Panalpina also raised a jurisdictional objection contending that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to determine the case because the matter fell within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court (“FHC”) under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1991 (“AJA”).
The High court dismissed the objection and held that the suit borders on bailment and negligence and entered judgment in favour of the Appellants.
However, on appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the contract was for the transportation of the goods to the consignee at Calabar; and that the appellants’ showing and the conclusion of the trial court on the facts squarely brought the action within the contemplation of section 1(1)(g) of the AJA. The Appellants further appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue for Determination
The main issue for determination before the apex Court was whether Section 1(1) and (2) of the AJA extends admiralty jurisdiction to cover claims arising from loss or damage to goods after discharge from a ship, during subsequent inland transportation to the consignee.
The Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s position that the High Court of Lagos State had jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim, which was properly characterised as one for negligence and breach of contract in respect of inland transport.
The Court held that Section 1(2) of the AJA applies only (a) to contract of carriage and delivery of goods from overseas to the importer or the consignee which may involve transportation by sea and by land; and (b) where such transportation of the goods by landforms part of a single continuous contract.
Under such aoccursract, the carrier bears the responsibility to deliver the goods from when they are placed on board its vessel abroad to their final delivery to the consignee, regardless of whether parts of the journey occur by land. In that context, land carriage is regarded as a continuation of the sea carriage, and the FHC would have jurisdiction over any claims arising under such a unified contract.
In the instant case, the Court found that the contract for land carriage from the Customs warehouse in Port Harcourt to Calabar was separate and independent from the earlier contract of carriage by sea from the United Kingdom.
The sea carriage contract had been fully executed upon the offloading and delivery of the engine to the Customs warehouse. It was thereafter that Glenyork engaged Panalpina under a distinct arrangement to undertake the inland transport. Consequently, the subsequent inland carriage by the Respondent, being unrelated to the original sea carriage contract, fell outside the scope of admiralty jurisdiction under the AJA.
Commentary on the Decision
The decision of the Supreme Court in Glenyork is laudable for giving effect to the clear wordings of Sections 1(1)(g) and (2) of the AJA to the effect that the admiralty jurisdiction of the FHC does not end upon the discharge of cargo from a vessel as had been held in previous decisions of the Supreme Court and most recently in the decision in Sopetro Marine Ltd v. N.O. & G.S. Ltd [2025] 7 NWLR (Pt 1988) 75 at 97, paras E-G.
It is hoped that the apex Court, going forward, would continue to apply the decision in this case and jettison the previous principle of “tackle to tackle” it had applied in limiting the admiralty jurisdiction of the FHC, contrary to the unambiguous provisions of the AJA on the point.