A maritime lawyer, Dr Emeka Akabogu, has advised judges to better appreciate the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, which conferred jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to determine admiralty claims.
Akabogu, Senior Partner, Akabogu and Associates, said this in a recent interview to a local media in Abuja, which Clarform has learnt.
Clariform reports that Admiralty Claims are claims, which arise from the carriage of goods by sea and all other aspects relating to maritime.
The lawyers said, “I will like to advise and encourage all Judges at the high court level and appellate level to better appreciate the significance of foundational maritime laws, particularly the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act.
“The law confers jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to determine such matters.”
He said such appreciation would enable them to make better decisions that would impact on free flow of goods, quick vessel turnaround, trade facilitation and better business enablement at the ports.
”A lot of port congestion and associated constraints arise from people who have rights which have been breached but which cannot be fully ventilated at that point.
”Some people have their cargoes stuck at the ports due to breaches of their economic rights, but are constrained in dealing with it due to technical issues in the law and courts bordering on jurisdiction .
”Often, the value of the cargo will dissipate over time and they will not even have any encouragement or any desire to go and clear it from the ports anymore, leading to congestion.”
According to Akabogu, the Federal High Court is supposed to have jurisdiction for admiralty claims.
He said however, that often when claims arose and were filed in the Federal High Court, they were truncated due to wrong application or appreciation of admiralty jurisdiction issues.
He said sometimes, it was not the Federal High Court that did it, adding that sometimes one might file a successful claim at the Federal High Court but it would go on appeal.
”And when it goes on appeal either to the Court of Appeal or to the Supreme Court, the court will come up with the position that the Federal High Court did not have jurisdiction in the first place.
Akabogu said in doing this, the courts suggested that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court should end when the cargo was discharged from the vessel.
Akabogu explained that this decision always did not favour the consignees as many losses/damages occurred after the cargo was discharged from the vessel and before being delivered to the consignee.
He said such were some of the types of claims that Nigerians needed to have adjudicated upon, to enhance business at the ports.
”Now, when you say that the Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction because the cargo has been discharged, then it means that many people who have their cargo lost or damaged within the ports after it has been discharged from the vessel will have their rights extinguished.
He said the same happened to those who had losses occurring in the course of carriage to deliver to the consignee or in their ware houses or similar other things.
Akabogu explained that continuous enlightenment was necessary to resolve such challenge.
