JOHN HOLT SHIPPING SERVICES vs. EDWARD NASSAR & CO., LTD [COURT OF APPEAL] [1971]DLCA2121

Date	1971-01-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLCA2121

APALOO JA

SOWAH JA

ARCHER J.A.

E. B. GAISIE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS.

[1971]DLCA2121
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >JOHN HOLT SHIPPING SERVICES <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>EDWARD NASSAR &amp; CO., LTD <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 1 GLR 205<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
25 JANUARY 1971.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

E. B.
GAISIE FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

NO
APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

APALOO, SOWAH AND ARCHER JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
respondents, Edward Nassar &amp; Co., Ltd., imported twenty cases of Handy
Plast Strips from Hamburg for delivery at Takoradi. The appellants, John Holt Shipping
Services, were the agents for the carriers, the Guinea Gulf Line Limited. The
goods were shipped from Hamburg on the boat Elizabeth Holt and arrived at
Takoradi harbour on 24 March 1962. At the time of the arrival of the goods at
Takoradi, the bill of lading, which constituted the legal title of the
respondents to the goods, had not been received. Later when the respondents
were in possession of the bill of lading, they called for the delivery of the
goods, but the goods could not be traced in the public warehouse at Takoradi
harbour. There was a clear evidence that the goods were safely unloaded from
the Elizabeth Holt into the public warehouse. The police investigated the
alleged loss and instituted criminal proceedings against certain persons for
stealing the goods. All of the accused were acquitted.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Thereupon,
the respondents sued the appellants for failing to deliver the goods in
accordance with the terms of the bill of lading and claimed £G1,050 damages
being the market value of the goods. The High Court, sitting at Sekondi, gave
judgment for the respondents. The appellants appealed against the judgment. The
following additional grounds of appeal were argued:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(1) The
learned judge was wrong in not holding that the tally clause was conclusive. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2) The
learned judge ought to have dismissed the action since at the material time the
defendants were acting on behalf of the plaintiffs and not as agents for the
Guinea Gulf Line Limited, the ship owners.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">&nbsp;(3) The learned judge erred in law in holding that
the defendants were not covered by the protection and exemption clause in the
bill of lading or in the Hague Rules. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(4) The
learned judge erred in law in holding that action was not time-barred. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(5) the
learned judge found the defendants liable upon a cause of action not relied
upon or pleaded by the plaintiffs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This is a
straight forward appeal and no useful purpose will be served by considering
each ground of appeal separately. Instead, it is intended to pose one question,
the answer to which will cover all the grounds of appeal argued. Do the Hague
rules apply to the respondents’ claim? The answer is no. Clause (1) of the bill
of lading reads as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Application
of Public Law - Where the port of shipment is in territory where legislation
giving compulsory effect to the International Convention concerning Bills of
Lading of 25th August 1924 is in force, this Bill of Lading shall have effect
subject to such legislation and in all other cases this Bill of Lading shall
have effect subject to the Rules (known as the Hague Rules) contained </main>