CASE TITLE: GENERAL SHIPPING & TRADING SERVICES LTD v. D’AMICO TANKERS D.A.C. (2026) LPELR-86612(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 17TH JULY, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: ADMIRALTY LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Remedies for Wrongful Arrest of a Vessel.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division, delivered on 5th March, 2021, in Appeal No: CA/L/1210/2017. In that judgment, the Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal and affirmed the ruling of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/247/2017.
The respondent’s case was founded on the alleged unlawful arrest and detention of the vessel, MT High Presence, by officers of the Nigerian Navy acting in conjunction with the Admiralty Marshal.
According to the respondent, on or about 30th December 2016, the appellant instituted an admiralty action in rem before the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2121/2016 against d’Amico Shipping Italia S.P.A. and the vessel MT High Presence. The action was predicated on the allegation that MT High Presence belonged to d’Amico Shipping Italia S.P.A., which was purportedly indebted to the appellant in the sum of USD 5 million. The alleged indebtedness was said to represent the value of 12,500 metric tonnes of crude oil which, according to the appellant, had been fraudulently diverted by a sister vessel to the detriment of its rightful owner.
Following an ex parte application, the Court granted an order for the arrest of the vessel on the premise that it constituted a sister vessel to MT Cielo Di Milano, said to be owned by the defendant. In obtaining the arrest order, the defendant was required to, and indeed did, provide an undertaking as to damages in favour of the plaintiff, thereby assuming liability to indemnify the plaintiff should the arrest ultimately be found to have been wrongful or without legal justification.
The respondent, maintaining that the arrest of the vessel was wrongful, commenced an action against the appellant. Their claim was founded on the undertaking earlier given by the appellant in support of the arrest of the vessel and the substantial losses allegedly suffered as a consequence of the arrest and detention.
The appellant challenged the competence of the action by filing a Notice of Preliminary Objection. The objection questioned the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit, contending that a mandatory precondition for the institution of the action had not been fulfilled. The trial Court considered the objection and, in a ruling delivered on 27th September 2017, found it to be devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed it.
Dissatisfied with that ruling, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Appeal was determined on a sole issue viz:
“Whether, having regard to the provisions of Order 11 Rules 2 and 3 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules, 2011, the trial Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s action for damages arising from the alleged wrongful arrest of the vessel when, according to the appellant, the respondent had failed to satisfy the prescribed conditions precedent for the institution of such an action.”
DECISION/HELD:
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.
RATIOS:
- APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Attitude of the Supreme Court to interference with concurrent finding(s) of fact(s) of Lower Courts
- APPEAL- PERVERSE FINDING(S)/DECISION(S): Meaning of perverse finding(s)/decision(s)
- APPEAL- INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL: Attitude of the Appellate Court to the filing of an interlocutory appeal when the substantive case is still pending
- LEGAL PRACTITIONER- DUTY OF COUNSEL: Duty of Counsel as a minister in the temple of justice and an officer of the Court
- SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY- ARREST OF A SHIP: Remedies available for wrongful arrest of a vessel under Order 11 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules 2011
- SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY- ARREST OF A SHIP: Whether the procedure for seeking a remedy for the wrongful arrest of a vessel under Order 11 Rule 2 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules 2011 within three months serves as a bar to seeking a remedy under Order 11 Rule 3 of the Rules and Section 13 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
