Facts
In 1993, the 1st Appellant imported among others, a large 12RK Ruston Diesel Power Engine from the United Kingdom to Port Harcourt and contracted the Respondent to handle customs clearance of the goods, their transfer to the customs warehouse at the Seaport in Port Harcourt upon their discharge, and transportation of the engine by road to their project site in Calabar. The Respondent subcontracted the transport to a third party. In breach of the Respondent’s contractual duty to carry the goods carefully, safely and securely, the engine was negligently handled and delivered badly damaged to the 1st Appellant’s project site at EPZ, Calabar. The 1st Appellant engaged the manufacturer’s engineers from UK to examine and assess the damage, which was submitted to its Insurer – the 2nd Appellant. In settlement of the claim and in line with standard practice, the 2nd Appellant engaged other professionals for adjustment of the claims and settled them.
The Respondent on its part denied liability for the damage to the engine and refused to pay and indemnify the Appellants for the damage to the engine. The Appellants therefore, instituted an action against the Respondent at the High Court of Lagos State. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court to determine the suit on the ground that the Appellants’ claims are admiralty-related, and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. In its ruling on the objection, the High Court of Lagos State held that the subject of the suit is a simple contract of bailment and negligence, which did not relate to ship and maritime claims. That it is not an admiralty matter and is therefore, within the jurisdiction of the trial court.
