Whether the Issue of Payment of Demurrage for Overstay if Vessels Falls Under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court

CASE TITLE:  CONOIL PLC v. NIMEX PETROCHEMICALS LTD. & ANOR (2025) LPELR-81349 (CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 10TH JUNE, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Admiralty Matters.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, sitting in Abuja, delivered on the 28th of October, 2013, by I. N. AUTA, the then Chief Judge.

The Respondents sought the following reliefs against the Appellant at the trial Court:

a. The sum of USD 2,948,619.38 being the accumulated demurrage incurred by the defendant from the various supplies of petroleum products by the plaintiff through shipment to the defendant as particularised in paragraph 11 of this statement of claim.

b. The sum of USD127,060.62 being the interest generated on the said demurrage sum of USD2,948,619.38 at 16.50% as of 4th January, 2007.

c. Interest at the rate of 21% on the entire judgment sum and thereafter till the satisfaction of the judgment sum.

The Appellant as Defendant filed a statement of defence and counterclaim and sought the following reliefs:

(a) N 320 million as loss of profit as a result of the delay in the delivery of the 5000 metric tonnes of base oil cargo by the plaintiff’s vessel, the MT SEVEN FISHERS.

(b) N120 million loss of sales of lubricants as a result of the delay in the delivery of 5000 metric tonnes of base oil.

(c) The sum of $2,000,000 as damages for the injuries to the goodwill of the Defendant.

(d) $221,909.74 as loss of profit as a result of the blockage of the Defendant’s $665,729:22.

The Respondents filed an amended reply and defence to the counterclaim in reaction. Both sides called oral and documentary evidence in support of their pleadings, after which their respective counsel filed and adopted their final written addresses. The trial Court thereafter delivered a reserved judgment wherein it found in favour of the Plaintiffs as per their reliefs, while the counterclaim of the Defendant now Appellant was found to have been abandoned on the ground that no evidence was led in support thereof. Dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court considered the following issues raised by the Appellant:

(a) Whether or not the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the Respondents.

(b) Whether or not there was a competent suit before the Federal High Court.

(c) Whether or not the trial Judge was in order when he granted reliefs in favour of the 2nd Respondent.

(d) Whether or not the judgment of the lower Court was perverse.

(e) Whether or not the lower Court was in order in awarding compound and pre-judgment interest in favour of the Respondents.

(f) Whether or not the lower Court was in order in dismissing the Counter-Claim of the Appellant.

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal in part by reviewing the post-judgment interest awarded by the trial Court from 21% to 10%.

RATIOS:

• ACTION- LOCUS STANDI: Position of the law as regards the concept of locus standi; how to raise the issue of locus standi
• ACTION- PLEADINGS: Whether parties are bound by their pleadings
• ACTION- JOINDER OF ACTION/CAUSE OF ACTION: Whether joint plaintiffs must act together for their common cause of action.
• COURT- JURISDICTION: Importance of jurisdiction and effect of proceedings conducted where Court lacks jurisdiction.
• EVIDENCE- ADMISSION/ADMITTED FACT(S): Effect of admission by a party
• EVIDENCE- ADMISSION/ADMITTED FACT(S): Whether failure to reply to a solicitor’s demand letter amounts to an admission.
• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: Burden of proof on a counterclaimant to prove his counterclaim and effect of failure to do so.
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER- AWARD OF INTEREST: Guiding principles on the award of pre-judgment interest
• JURISDICTION- ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION: Whether the issue of payment of demurrage for overstay of vessels falls under the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol