STOCKBRIDGE CO. LTD. (PLAINTIFF) vs. SUPERMARITIME GH. LTD & ANR. (DEFENDANTS) [2019]DLHC7144

Date	2019-07-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO: RPC/322/14
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7144

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

HUBERT SERVOR ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF

JOSEPHINE A. DWAMENA ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[2019]DLHC7144
																																						<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" >STOCKBRIDGE CO. LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SUPERMARITIME GH. LTD
&amp; ANR.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA]<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">

SUIT
NO: RPC/322/14&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 30TH
JULY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>HUBERT SERVOR ESQ., FOR
THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

JOSEPHINE
A. DWAMENA ESQ., FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A.
ASIEDU, J.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
instant motion seeks an order of the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s action
which was filed on the 25th September 2014 in which the Plaintiff
claims damages against the defendants for the damage caused to its shipment of
cement cargo from China to Ghana and which arrived at the port of Tema, Ghana
on or around the 15th September 2013.<o:p></o:p>By
the affidavit in support, the main contention of the applicant is that the
action was instituted well over one year after the delivery of the cargo to the
plaintiff and that that being so, the plaintiff’s action which is sued upon a
contract of carriage of goods by sea which is evidenced by a Bill of lading,
exhibit TS1 herein, is, by Article 3(6) of the Hague Rules of 1924, caught by
the period of limitation expressed therein and that for that reason, the action
is statute barred and should therefore be dismissed by the court. The
plaintiff/respondent is opposed to the application as shown by its affidavit in
opposition.<o:p></o:p>Article
3(6) of the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of
Law relating to Bills of Lading ("Hague Rules"), and Protocol of
Signature provides that: <o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;Unless notice of loss or damage and the
general nature of such loss of damage be given in writing to the carrier or his
agent at the port of discharge before or at time of the removal of the goods
into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract
of carriage, or, if the loss or damage be not apparent, within three days, such
removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the
goods as described in the bill of lading.<o:p></o:p>The notice in writing need not be given if the
state of the goods has, at the time of their receipt, been the subject of joint
survey or inspection.<o:p></o:p>In any event the carrier and the ship shall be
discharged from all liability in respect of loss of damage unless suit is
brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods
should have been delivered.<o:p></o:p>In the case of any actual or apprehended loss or
damage the carrier and the receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to
each other for inspecting and tallying the goods.<o:p></o:p>The
Hague Rules applies in Ghana per the Bills of Lading Act, 1961, Act 42. Section
1 of the Bills of Lading Act provides that:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;Application of Rules in Schedule<o:p></o:p>Subject to this Act, the Rules contained in
articles 1 to 8 of the Convention which are set out in the Schedule shall have
effect in relation to and in connection with the carriage of goods by sea in
ships carrying goods from a port in the Republic to any other port whether in
or outside the Republic.<o:p></o:p>In
SCANSHIP GHANA LTD v EFFASCO LTD
[1999-2000] 1 GLR 448, the court explained in relation to the application
of the Hague Rules in Ghana that:<o:p></o:p>The Hague Rules apply subject to the provisions of
the Bill of Lading Act, 1961 (Act 42). By section I of Act 42, the Hague Rules
applied in relation to and in connection with the carriage of goods by sea in
ships carrying goods from any part of Ghana to any other part whether in or
outside Ghana. Since in the instant case, the cargo was being carried from a
port in the United Kingdom and not from Ghana, the limitation in liability in
article 4(5) of Act 42 did not apply to the case.<o:p></o:p>In
the instant case, the parties agree that the cargo in question was not carried
in a ship sailing from a port in Ghana to another port but instead it was
carried from a port in the Republic of China to the port of Tema in Ghana. It
means therefore that, the period of limitation of one (1) year provided under
the Hague Rules does not apply to the instant matter. The court holds therefore
that the action brought by the plaintiff herein is not statute barred. <o:p></o:p>The
instant application is therefore refused. <</main>