PAN AFRICAN TRADING CO. AND ANOTHER vs. HOLLAND WEST AFRICA AND ANOTHER [1975]DLHC420

Date	1975-12-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1975]DLHC420

EDUSEI J.

S. A. X. TSEGAH FOR OKUDZETO FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

ASIAMAH FOR DJABANOR FOR THE CO-DEFENDANTS.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS.

[1975]DLHC420
																																						<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" >PAN AFRICAN TRADING CO. AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>HOLLAND WEST AFRICA AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 237<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
18 DECEMBER 1975.<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">

S. A. X. TSEGAH FOR OKUDZETO FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

ASIAMAH FOR DJABANOR FOR THE CO-DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS.<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">

EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>In this
case certain galvanised iron sheets were shipped from Tokyo to Tema where the
co-defendants took delivery. The plaintiffs say that they were entitled to the
said galvanised iron sheets and that it was wrong for the defendants, the
carriers, to have delivered them to the co-defendants because according to the
bill of lading, they (the plaintiffs) were the owners.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs are therefore claiming the value of the iron sheets from the
defendants, the carriers, and the whole arguments turned on the legal
significance of a bill of lading. The bill of lading was put in evidence as
exhibit A. It is interesting to note, however, that the defendants contented
themselves by relying on the arguments put forward by the co-defendants’
counsel without taking any active part in the proceedings.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
quite clear, however, from exhibit A, that the consignees of the iron sheets
were Banque Libano Francaise, a bank in Beirut, which endorsed the bill of
lading to Pan African Trading Co., Ltd., the first plaintiffs, on 24 November
1971. On exhibit A the co-defendants’ name appears as a notifying address only
and the contention of the plaintiffs is that this did not entitle the
co-defendants to claim the iron sheets. The question to be asked is this: What
is the effect of a bill of lading? In Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd ed.),
Vol. 35 at p. 522, para. 747, it is stated that: “A bill of lading thus issued
is prima facie evidence of the receipt of the carrier of the goods described
therein.” Again in Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd ed.) Vol. 34 at p. 179,
para. 309 the meaning of bill of lading is given 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">“A bill
of lading is a receipt for goods delivered to and received by a ship, signed by
the person who contracts to carry them, or his agent, normally the master of
the ship, and stating the terms of the contract of carriage under which the
goods have been so delivered and received. During the period of transit and
voyage the bill of lading is, by the law merchant, recognised as the symbol of
the goods described in it, and the endorsement and delivery of the bill of
lading operates as a symbolic delivery of the goods. Property in the goods
passes by such endorsement whenever it is the intention of the parties that the
property should pass, just as in similar circumstances the property would pass
by actual delivery of the goods. The holder of the bill of lading is entitled
as against the shipper to have the goods delivered to him to the exclusion of
other persons.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It does
seem to me therefore that the carriers, i.e. the defendants herein, were under
an obligation to deliver the goods to the person who would properly present the
bill of lading. In this case the bill of lading, exhibit A, was endorsed by the
consignees, Banque Libano Francaise, to the first plaintiffs, the assigns, who
on presentation of the said bill of lading would have been entitled to take
delivery of the galvanised iron sheets. Thus in Glyn, Mills Currie &amp; Co. v.
East and West India Dock Co. (1882) 7 App.Cas. 591, H.L., goods were shipped,
consigned and deliverable to “Cottam &amp; Co. or their assigns.” During the
voyage, Cottam &amp; Co. deposited one bill of lading with the plaintiffs as a
security for a loan, and with the second bill (which was unendorsed) they
obtained delivery from the dock company.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs sued the dock company for wrongful delivery and it was held that the
dock company were entitled to deliver on presentation of the unendorsed bill </main>