Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice in Nigeria

1. ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION AND PRACTICE IN NIGERIA.1
Abstract
Nigeria is the most populous Black nation and the 7th most populated
nation in the entire world, trailing after—from least to most—Pakistan,
Brazil, Indonesia, USA, India and China. Nigerian economy is ranked as
the 21st
largest economy in the world in terms of nominal GDP, and the 20th
largest in terms of Purchasing Power Parity. It is the largest economy in
Africa; its manufacturing sector is the third-largest on the continent, and
produces a large proportion of goods and services for the West African sub
region and generates more than 70% of the sea-borne trade in the sub-
region. Nigeria is blessed with a coastline of about 853 kilometres and
about 3,000 kilometres of inland waters with an economy basically reliant
on natural resources to wit: petroleum, natural gas, iron ore, coal, lead,
limestone, etc. Nigeria currently has six (6) major ports, ten (10) crude oil
terminals and several inland ports dotted along the over 3,000km of inland
waters and one hundred and sixty eight (168) jetties2
. Maritime disputes are
a natural consequence of such a dominant position. This paper shall
consider admiralty jurisdiction and practice in Nigeria by looking at
maritime claims, modes of exercise of the admiralty jurisdiction, do an
appraisal of the admiralty laws, rules of court and relevant decisions of the
courts on these laws and rules.
1. Introduction
Admiralty has so much affinity with maritime law, so much so that the words are used
interchangeably in maritime practice. It has not that affinity with the law of the sea.
Admiralty refers to the law of marine commerce and marine navigation. It entails the
transportation at sea of persons and property and marine affairs in general.3
Admiralty is a
court that exercises jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, torts, injuries or offenses.4
Admiralty is a law or judicial body having to do with, or jurisdiction over, shipping and use
of the sea. In reference to the body of law, some jurisdictions prefer the plain language term
maritime law and, historically, the domain was also referred to as marine law 5
Admiralty is
court exercising jurisdiction over maritime causes, both civil and criminal, and marine affairs,
commerce and navigation, controversies arising out of acts done upon or relating to the sea,
and over questions of prize. Also, the system of jurisprudence relating to and growing out of
the jurisdiction and practice of the admiralty courts.6
A ship is “a type of vessel used or
intended to be used for navigation.7
” A ship means “a vessel of any kind used or constructed
for use in navigation by water, however it is propelled or moved and includes (a) a barge,
lighter or other floating vessel, including a drilling rig; (b) a hovercraft; (c) an offshore
industry mobile unit; and (d) a vessel that has sunk or is stranded and the remains of such
vessel, but does not include a vessel under construction that has not been launched8
”
1
O. W. Arugu, LL.M (Ife), Department of Business Law, Rivers State University of Science and Technology,
Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria. For comments and suggestions please contact me on
obugheni@yahoo.com.
2
See http://www.nigerianports.org/dynamicdata/uploads/Jetties/ApprovedJettiesandPorts.pdf
3
See Integrated Timber and Plywood Products Ltd v. Union Bank
4
See Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition, p. 53.
5
Accessed at <http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/Admiralty.aspx> on 20/2/18.
6
Accessed at <http://thelawdictionary.org/admiralty/> retrieved on 20/2/18
7
Brian A. Garner, Ibid, 1503
8
See s. 25 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1991.

2. Jurisdiction defines the power of the court to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions
and declare judgment. Jurisdiction is a radical and fundamental question of competence, for if
the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case, the proceeding are and remain a nullity however
well conducted and brilliantly decided they might have been. A defect in competence is not
intrinsic but rather extrinsic to adjudication9
. The Nigerian Supreme Court in the case of
Madukolu v. Nkemdilim10
held jurisdiction defines the power of the court to inquire into facts,
apply the law, make decisions and declare judgment. Jurisdiction is a radical and fundamental
question of competence, for if the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case, the proceeding are and
remain a nullity however well conducted and brilliantly decided they might have been.11
A defect in
competence is not intrinsic but rather extrinsic to adjudication.12
The jurisdiction of a court is
firstly determined by reference to the claim endorsed to the claim endorsed in the writ of summons
and/or statement of claim. Other factors to be considered by the court before assuming jurisdiction are
(1) whether the claim discloses a cause of action; (2) whether the subject matter of the action is within
the jurisdiction of the court; (3) whether the Plaintiff is competent to bring the action; and (4) whether
the court is not otherwise disqualified either in the membership or enabling statute to adjudicate.13
The issue of jurisdiction which can be raised at any stage by either the parties, or the court, is
decided when the point is taken14
and whenever an issue of jurisdiction is raised, a court
should deal with it first or promptly or expeditiously, as it has jurisdiction, to decide whether
or not it has jurisdiction.15
Practice is the procedural methods and rules used in a court of law.16
A judicial definition by
the Nigerian Supreme on practice and procedure is as follows: “Procedure or practice belongs
to the realm of adjectival law, made up of essentially rules of court, whether civil or criminal
or appellate as opposed to laws which fix duties, establish rights and responsibilities among
and for persons – be they natural or corporate which are known as substantive laws.”17
Admiralty practice developed from the unwritten trade practices which operated among
European merchants in the carriage of goods by sea from port to port but through the English
received law. Nigeria now has its Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (AJA)18
, Admiralty Jurisdiction
Procedure Rules (AJPR), 2011 and relevant procedure of the Federal High Court (Civil
9
Hon. Ehioze Egharevba v. Hon. Crosby Osadolor Eribo & Ors (2010) Per Adekeye J.S.C.
10
(1962) 1 All NLR 584; (1962) 2 SCNLR 341
11
See also Adeigbe v. Kushimo (1965) 1 ANLR 248 referred to in the case of Alhaji Matari & 6 Ors. v.
Dangaladima & Anor. (1993) 2 SCNJ 122 @ 130; (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 281) 266 – per Karibi-Whyte JSC.
12
See Hon. Ehioze Egharevba v. Hon. Crosby Osadolor Eribo & Ors (2010) Per Adekeye J.S.C.
13
See Int’l Nigerbuild Const. Co. Ltd. v. Giwa (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 836) 69 at 97 paragraphs C-F, Anya v.
Iyayi (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 305) 290; McLaren v. Jennings (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 808) 470; Tukur v. Governor of
Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517 and Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156
14
Adani v. Igwe (1957) i FSC 87 @ 88; (1957) SCNLR 396.
15
NALSA & Team Associates v. NNPC (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 439) at 637; (1996) 3 SCNJ 50 at 61; Chief
Ukwu & 3 Ors. v. Chief Bunge (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 518) 527 at 541-544; (1997) 7 SCNJ 262 at 273; Shitta-
Bay v. Attorney General of the Federation & Anor. (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 570) 392 at 414; (1998) 7 SCNJ 264,
Onuoha v. The State (1998) 12 SCNJ 1 at 27; (1998) 5NWLR (Pt. 548) 118; Messrs. N.V. Scheep & Anor. v.
The M/V “S. Araz” & Anor. (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 622 at 658 – 659; (2000) 12 SCNJ 21 at 55 – per
Karibi-Whyte, JSC. Citing Mills v. Renner (1940) 6 ACA 144.
16
Ibid, p. 1291
17
See NV Scheep vs. S. Araz (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 622 @ 653 (SC), Per Ogundare, JSC.
18
Cap A 5, LFN 2004.

3. Procedure) Rules (FHCCPR) 2009, to govern admiralty practice in Nigeria. The AJPR 2011
was made on 1st March 2011 but came into force on 14th March 2011 by the Chief Judge of
the Federal High Court (FHC) pursuant to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
(CFRN) 1999. The AJA both empower the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to make
rules of practice and procedure for the FHC and to carry into effect the objects of the AJA.19
The AJA and the AJPR govern admiralty matters in Nigeria, with the FHC as the court of
first instance. The admiralty jurisdiction of the FHC is well stated in the AJA, whilst the
AJPR provides the procedure for the exercise of its jurisdiction.
2. Extent of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
Jurisdiction is the authority by which a court has to decide matters brought before it for
litigation or to take cognisance of issues presented before it in a formal way for its decision.20
The FHC is the only court in Nigerian exclusively vested with the jurisdiction to hear and
determine maritime claims and other admiralty causes or matters, whether civil or
criminal.21
The position of the law before 1991 and from 1979 was that the FHC and the State
High Courts (SHCs) had concurrent jurisdiction on admiralty matters. This arose from the
unlimited jurisdiction conferred on the State High Courts (SHCs) by CFRN 1979.22
See
Savannah Bank of Nigeria Ltd v. Pan African Shipping & Transport Agencies
Ltd,23
Onisade v. New African Development Co. Ltd;24
Nigerian National Supply Co. Ltd
v. Alhaji Hamadioda Sabana & Co. Ltd.25
The above decisions are useful only as an
historical stuff. Admiralty jurisdiction was originally conferred on the FHC by section 7 (1)
(d) of the Federal High Court Act, which provides that:
The court shall to the exclusion of any other court have original jurisdiction
to try civil causes and matters - any admiralty jurisdiction, including
shipping and navigation on the River Niger, Benue and their affluents and
on such other inland waterways as may be designed by an enactment of
international waterways, all federal ports, (including the constitution and
powers of the ports authorities for the Federal ports) and carriage of goods
by sea. 26
19
See s. 254 CFRN 1999 and s. 21 AJA - “The Chief Judge may make rules of practice and procedure for
carrying into effect the objects of this Act” It repealed the Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules 1999
20
See Owners of Baco Liner 3 v. Adeniji (1993) 2NWLR (Pt. 274) 195 @ 201
21
See Section 251(1)(G) of the 1999 Constitution; Section 7(I)(g) Federal High Court Act, 1973; Section 3
Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1991. The new Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules 2011 (the New Rules) was
made by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court (CJF) on 1st March 2011 and came into force on 14th
March 2011. This is pursuant to section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and
section 21 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (AJA) 1991 which empower the CJF to make rules of practice and
procedure for the FHC and to carry into effect the objects of the AJA. Together, the AJA and the AJPR govern
admiralty matters in Nigeria, with the FHC as the court of first instance. The admiralty jurisdiction of the FHC
is well stated in the AJA, whilst the AJPR provides the procedure for the exercise of its jurisdiction.
22
See s. 236 CFRN 1979. See also F. Nwadialo, Civil Procedure in Nigeria, 2nd
Edition, University of Lagos
Press, Lagos, 2000, pp. 59 – 64.
23
(1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 212
24
(1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 55) 158
25
(1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 56) 285
26
See s. 7 (1) (g), FHC Act, Cap. F 12, LFN, 2004.

4. The present source of the jurisdiction is s. 251(1)(h) CFRN 1999. The scope of the admiralty
jurisdiction was considered by the Supreme Court in American International Insurance
Company v. Ceekay Traders Ltd,27
the plaintiff/respondents claimed against the
defendant/appellants the sum of N2,742,318.00k being indemnity under the marine insurance
policy covering a cargo of rice shipped from Bangkok to Lagos in the vessel of Jal Sea
Condor which sank with all its cargo off the coast of South West Africa. Subsequent to the
filing of the action by the plaintiffs at the FHC, the defendant applied under Order 27, Rules
1 and 3 of the FHCCPR for an order to dismiss the action in the ground that the FHC lacked
jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The application was refused. An appeal to the Federal
Court of Appeal was dismissed, and the defendant appealed further to the SC. The SC held
that thus:
That looking at the nature and content of the admiralty jurisdiction given to
the Federal High Court by virtue of ss. 7(1)(d), 8(1), 24 and 63(4) of the
Federal Revenue Act 1973, it seems that the intention and overall effect of
these provisions of the 1973 Act is to oust the High Courts of the states
(including the High Court of Lagos) of their admiralty jurisdiction and vest
the same in the Federal High Court. It is not possible to agree to agree with
the appellant’s contention that the 1973 Act did not give the Federal High
Court the Admiralty jurisdiction it took away from the High Court of
Lagos. That the decision (Elias C.J.N. and Ibekwe J.S.C.) in Jammal
Structures Co. Ltd v. A. C. B. Ltd [1973] All N.L.R. 208 to the effect that
the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court should be restricted to
cases involving Federal Government vessels, property and revenue only
will be too narrow an interpretation to be placed on the clear words of ss.
7(1)(d), 8(1), 24 and 63(4); and it is impossible to disagree with the view of
Karibi-Whyte J. in the lower court when he observed that the said
interpretation of 7(1)(d) by this court was obiter dictum and as such had no
binding effect on him.28
In Aluminium Manufacturing Company (Nig.) Limited v. Nigerian Ports Authority,29
the
plaintiff/appellant claimed against the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) the sum of N198,
872.99K being general and special damages for breach of a contract of bailment and/or
breach of duty as a bailee. The plaintiff’s consignment of 178 packages of aluminium sheets
was delivered into the custody of the defendant from the M.V. River Aboine on 31st
May
1981. When customs duty has been paid and the plaintiff went to take delivery of the said
consignment, it was discovered that 47 packages had disappeared. The plaintiff after
receiving from the defendant a letter that the missing packages had been discharged into its
custody, commenced proceedings in the FHC. After commencement of the trial, Kachikwu J.
raised suo motu the question whether the case related to “admiralty matter”. After being
addressed on the issue he ruled that it was not an admiralty matter and transferred it to Lagos
State High Court. At the Lagos SHC Adefarasin C. J. struck it out on the ground that the
transfer from the FHC was improper. The CA held that the relationship of the parties is that
27
(1981) 5 SC 81; (1980 – 1986) NSC, Vol. 2, 65.
28
See the lead judgment of Uwais, J.S.C., in American International Insurance Company v. Ceekay Traders Ltd,
(1980 – 1986) NSC, Vol. 2, 65 @ 75 -76.
29
(1987) 1 NSCC 224; (1987 – 1990) NSC, Vol. 3, 82

5. of a bailor and bailee. The element of contract of carriage of goods by sea in this case was no
longer there because the contract under the bill of lading had terminated and the proper order
to make in the circumstance was to strike out the case since the order for transfer was
unlawful. On appeal to the SC, it allowed the appeal against striking out having regards to the
provisions of the constitution and dismissed the appeal on the limits of admiralty jurisdiction.
Obaseki, JSC., reading the lead judgement held amongst other things thus: “Although the
limits of the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is as prescribed by s. 1(1)(g)
and (h) of the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, of England, it is s. 7(1)(d) of the Federal
High Court Act, No. 13 of 1973 that conferred admiralty jurisdiction on the Federal High
Court.”30
By the provisions of the AJA the matter within the admiralty jurisdiction of the
FHC and the extent of such jurisdiction is now clearly set out as follows:
(a) jurisdiction to hear and determine any question relating to a proprietary
interest in a ship or aircraft or any maritime claim specified in section 2 of
this Act; (b) any other admiralty jurisdiction being exercised by any other
court in Nigeria immediately before the commencement of this Act; (c) any
jurisdiction connected with any ship or aircraft which is vested in any other
court in Nigeria immediately before the commencement of this Act (d) any
action or application relating to any cause or matter by any ship owner or
aircraft operator or any other person under the Merchant Shipping Act or
any other enactment relating to a ship or an aircraft for the limitation of the
amount of his liability in connection with the shipping or operation of
aircraft or other property; (e) any claim for liability incurred for oil
pollution damage; (f) any matter arising from shipping and navigation on
any inland waters declared as national waterways; (g) any manner arising
within a Federal port or national airport and its precincts, including claims
for loss or damage to goods occurring between the off-loading of goods
across space from a ship or an aircraft and their delivery at the consignee's
premises, or during storage or transportation before delivery to the
consignee; (h) any banking or letter of credit transaction involving the
importation or exportation of goods to and from Nigeria in a ship or an
aircraft, whether the importation is carried out or not and notwithstanding
that the transaction is between a bank and its customer; (i) any cause or
matter arising from the constitution and powers of all ports authorities,
airport authority and the National Maritime Authority; (j) any criminal
cause and matter arising out of or concerned with any of the matters in
respect of which jurisdiction is conferred by paragraphs (a) to (i) of this
subsection. (2) The admiralty jurisdiction of the Court in respect of carriage
and delivery of goods extends from the time the goods are placed on board
a ship for the purpose of shipping to the time the goods are delivered to the
consignee or whoever is to receive them, whether the goods were
transported on land during the process or not. (3) Any agreement or
purported agreement, monetary or otherwise connected with or relating to
carriage of goods by sea, whether the contract of carriage is executed or not,
shall be within the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court.31
30
(1987 – 1990) 3 NSC, 82 @ 92.
31
See s. 1 AJA. See also s. 251 (1) (g) of the CFRN 1999 as amended – “Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by
an Act of the 1999 Constitution as it relates to the exclusive National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall

6. The case law in support of this legislative endeavour is in great proliferation as evidenced by
the decisions in Integrated Timber and Plywood Products Ltd v. Union Bank,32
Brawal
Shipping Nig. Ltd v. Extraction and Commodity Services Ltd,33
Alraine Shipping
Limited v. Endura Auto Chemicals,34
Pacers Multi-Dynamic Ltd v. MV Dancing Sister,
35
etc. In Maersk Nigeria Limited v. Uma Investment Company Limited. on when a claim
can be brought within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the FHC, the court held thus:
For a claim to be brought within the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal
High Court, the goods concerned must have been lost when they were being
carried in a ship as cargo and not after they have been unloaded from the
ship. In other words, any claim which arises from acts or omissions of third
parties after the agreement (relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or the
use or hire of a ship) has been executed or terminated does not come within
the admiralty or civil jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. 36
On whether a cargo being discharged from sea brings admiralty jurisdiction to an end the
court relied on the case of Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd v. Leventis Technical Co. Ltd37
where it was held that it would be over stretching the admiralty jurisdiction of the FHC to say
that the FHC, under its admiralty jurisdiction, is the court that has jurisdiction over a dispute
arising from the termination of agreement between the shippers and the consignee. In the said
decision Nnaemeka Agu, JSC, had observed:
It is settled that once a cargo has been discharged from the vessel, carriage
by sea, admiralty ends.” See on this: Aluminium Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v.
Nigerian Ports Authority (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.51) 495. The locus for
admiralty jurisdiction is the high sea: Queen v. City of London Court
(1882) 1 Q.B. D. 273, p.296. And to borrow the words of Belgore, JSC,
from his opinion in the same Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd. v. Leventis Tech.
Co. Ltd (Supra): the mere fact that the goods at one stage, in their
movement, had a voyage on a ship does not ipso facto give rise to admiralty
jurisdiction.38
On the interpretation of Section 251 (1) (g) CFRN 1999 on the jurisdiction of the FHC in
matters of admiralty jurisdiction, the SC held that “I am unable to see how the suit has
violated the provision of Section 251(1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution. The scope of the
Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991 deals with maritime claim.”39
The AJA provides that Subject
have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters - (g) any admiralty
jurisdiction including shipping and navigation on the River Niger or River Benue and their effluents and on such
other inland waters as may be designated by any enactment to be on international waterway, all federal ports
(including the Constitution and powers of the ports authorities for federal ports) and carriage by sea”
32
[2006] All FWLR (Pt. 324) 1789 @ 1806 paras G-C.
33
(2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732) 172
34
(2002) FWLR (Pt. 96) 486
35
(2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 648) 241
36
(2013) LPELR-21247(CA, PH Division)
37
(1992) N.W.L.R. (Pt. 244) 675
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.

7. to the provisions of this Act, the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court shall apply to - all ships,
irrespective of the places of residence or domicile of their owners; and (b) all maritime
claims, wherever arising. 40
3. Maritime Claims in Nigeria
The legal framework regulating the carriage of persons and goods by sea is known as
maritime law, also termed admiralty law. Maritime law is defined as “The body of law
governing marine commerce and navigation, the carriage at sea of persons and property, and
marine affairs in general; the rules governing contract, tort, and workers’ – compensation
claims or relating to commerce on or over water.”41
Given the above definition of maritime
law, we can conclude that, maritime claims are demands for contractual or statutory
entitlements in transactions arising from marine commence and navigation, the transportation
at sea of persons and property, and marine affairs in general. It includes demands for
compensation for torts arising out of commerce on or over water. In Nigerian maritime
jurisprudence, the maritime claims that are enforceable in the FHC - which is the Nigerian
Court of law given the exclusive the jurisdiction by the Constitution to hear and determine
any question relating to any maritime claim. Maritime claims are classified into two
categories namely: proprietary maritime claim and general maritime claim/42
Proprietary
maritime claim is a reference to: a claim relating to (i). the possession of a ship; or (ii). a
title to or ownership of a ship or of a share in a ship; or (iii) a mortgage of a ship or of a share
in a ship; or (iv). a mortgage of a ship's freight; (b) a claim between co-owners of a ship
relating to the possession, ownership, operation or earning of a ship; (c) a claim for the
satisfaction or enforcement of a judgment given by the Court or any court (including a court
of a foreign country) against a ship or other property in an admiralty proceeding in rem; (d) a
claim for interest in respect of a claim referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of this
subsection.43
See the decision in Cemar Shipping Inc. V. M/T ‘Cindy Gaia.44
General maritime claim relates to a claim that involves:
(a) a claim for damage done by a ship, whether by collision or otherwise;
(b) a claim for damage received by a ship; (c) a claim for loss of lives or
for personal injuries sustained in consequence of a defect in a ship or in the
apparel or equipment of a ship; (d)subject to subsection (4) of this section,
a claim including a claim for loss of life or personal injury, arising out of
an act or omission of – (i) the owner or charterer of a ship; (ii) a person in
possession or control of a ship; (iii) a person whose wrongful act the
owner, charterer or person in possession or control of the ship is liable; (e)
a claim for loss or damage to goods carried by a ship; (f) a claim out of an
agreements relating to the carriage of goods or persons by a ship; (g) a
claim relating to salvage (including life salvage of cargo or wreck found on
land); (h) a claim in respect of general average; (i) a claim in respect of
pilotage of a ship; (j) a claim in respect of towage of a ship or an aircraft
40
Section 3
41
Brian A. Garner, ibid, 982,
42
See Section 2 (1) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act.
43
See S. 2 (2) Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1991.
44
[2007] All FWLR (Pt. 349) 1087 @ 1103, paras. G-H.

8. when it is water-borne; (k) a claim in respect of goods, materials or
services (including stevedoring and lighterage service) supplied or to be
supplied to a ship for its operation or maintenance; (l) a claim in respect of
the construction of a ship (including such a claim relating to a vessel
before it was launched); (m) a claim in respect of the alteration, repair or
equipping of a ship or dock charges or dues; (n) a claim in respect of a
liability for port, harbour, canal or light tolls, charges or dues of any kind
in relation to a ship; (o) a claim arising out of bottomry; (p) a claim by a
master, shipper, charterer or agent in respect of disbursements on account
of a ship; (q) a claim for insurance premium, or for mutual insurance call,
in relation to a ship, or goods or cargo carried by a ship; (r) a claim by a
master, or member of the crew, or a member of the crew, of a ship for – (i)
wages; or (ii) an amount that a person, as employer, is under an obligation
to pay to a person as employee, whether the obligation arose out of a
contract of employment or by operation of law, including by operation of
the law of a foreign country; (s) a claim for the forfeiture or condemnation
of a ship or of goods which are being or have been attempted to be carried
by a ship, or for the restoration of a ship or any other goods after seizure;
(t) a claim for the enforcement of or a claim arising out of an arbitral
award (including a foreign award within the meaning of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act made in respect of a proprietary maritime claim or a
claim referred to in any of the paragraphs (a) to (t) of this subsection45
.
In Med Queen & Ors. v. J. B. Erinfolami,46
the Respondent as Plaintiff in the FHC claimed
against the Appellants as Defendants jointly and severally the sum of N822,000.00 being
special and general damages for non-use and negligent damage by the Appellant and hirer’s
of the Respondent’s forklift. A preliminary objection on the competence of the suit was
overruled by the trial judge and an appeal on the issue whether the claim for non-use and
negligent damage to the Plaintiff’s forklift constitutes a general maritime claim within the
meaning of section 2 (3) (k) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1991 thereby falling within the
purview of the FHC. The CA held that the forklift neither offered a lighterage service nor was
it goods or material supplied to the 1st
Appellant for its operation and maintenance of the ship
(1st
Appellant). It was hired by the Appellants to offload goods from the 1st
Appellant. The
learned Trial Judge wrongly construed the meaning of s. 2 (3) (k) of the AJA and therefore
came to a wrong conclusion that the claim of the Respondent came under the said section and
therefore a general maritime claim. The Respondent’s claim is founded on contract of hire of
forklift by the Appellants and by S. 1(i) AJA such claim does not fall within the Admiralty
Jurisdiction of the FHC. Accordingly, the FHC has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the
suit pending before it.
In Francis Obi Oroegbu v. Calabar Carrier & Ors.,47
The court was to determine whether
the learned trial judge was right in holding that the Memorandum of Understanding between
the Appellant and the 5th
Respondent was not an agreement for the use and hire of a ship
within the meaning of section 2 (3) (f) of the AJA, 1991 and as such could not found a
45
See S. 2 (3) AJA.
46
( 2003 – 2008) Nigerian Shipping Cases, Vol. 10, 498 @ 503 – 504.
47
(2003 – 2008) Nigerian Shipping Cases, Vol. 10, 507.

9. general maritime claim. The CA held that the Appellant’s claims for damages and injunction,
all based on a breach of contract between the parties. By S. 251(1) (p) CFRN 1999, an action
for breach of contract simpliciter does not fall within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the FHC.
Not every transaction that involves a ship that is an action founded on the AJA. The
application of s. 2 (3) (f) AJA requires that the claim before the trial court must have arisen
out of an agreement either in respect of carriage of goods or persons by the ship or the use or
hire of the ship whether by charterparty or otherwise. To successfully bring the suit of the
Appellant within the provisions of section 2 (3) (f) of the AJA, the Appellant must state
clearly the nature and “usage” he put the vessels to. Equally, the injury caused to him by the
vessels must be clearly spelt out. Short of these, the admiralty jurisdiction of the FHC cannot
be invoked. 48
4. Mode of Exercise of Admiralty Jurisdiction:
Maritime claims may be made by an action in personam or an action in rem49
. An action in
personam is an action against individuals who may be carriers, owners, charterers, managers
and operators of ships. Defining the expression “action in personam”, Coker J.S.C.,
delivering the lead judgment of the Court in Nigerian Port Authority v. Panalpina50
observed:
Etymologically an action in personam is an action brought against a person,
an action to compel him to do or not to do a particular thing or take or not
to take a particular course of action or inaction. Actions for damages in tort
or breaches of contract are clearly directed against the person as opposed to
actions which are brought for the purpose of declaring or challenging a
status, like proceedings under the matrimonial laws of the country or
legitimacy or admiralty action directed against a ship or the res (and so
know as an action in rem) or the like. Generally therefore, all actions which
are aimed at the person requiring him to do or not to do or take or not to
take an action or course of conduct must be and are actions in
personam.”51
It should be noted that, as a matter of principle of law, the fact
that, a judgment was obtained in an action in personam, does not mean
that, it is not enforceable against the assets of the defendant sued
irrespective of the nature of the claim.52
It should be noted that, as a matter of principle of law, the fact that, a judgment was obtained
in an action in personam, does not mean that, it is not enforceable against the assets of the
defendant sued irrespective of the nature of the claim.53
48
Refer per Ogwuegbu, JSC, Rhein Mass Und See GMBH v. Rivway Lines Ltd
49
S. 5 AJA.
50
(1973) 5 SC at pp. 96-97; ANLR 408, 422
51
Definition adopted and cited with approval in the lead judgment of Ogundare J.S.C., in Rhein Mass Und See
Schiffahrskontor Gmbh & Ors V. Rivway Lines Limited (1998) 5 NWLR (PT. 549) 265; (1998) 4 S. C. 73.
52
Definition adopted and cited with approval in the lead judgment of Ogundare J.S.C., In Rhein Mass Und See
Gmbh v. Rivway Lines Limited (1998) 5 NWLR (PT. 549) 265; (1998) 4 S. C. 73.
53
See M.V. Zack Metal Co. v. International Navigation Corporation (1975) A.M.C. 720.

10. Similarly, depending on the circumstances of a case, a claim or liability in personam could be
pursued through an action in rem. In the case of Rhein Mass Und See Schiffahrskontor
Gmbh & Ors V. Rivway Lines Limited54
Mohammed J.S.C., held that
the appellants’ liability in personam could be pursued through an action in
rem against the ship or its owners, agent, hirer or charterer. Since the vessels
on account of which the disbursement were made are no longer available
within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court for the respondents to have
proceeded against them, the respondents are therefore right under the law to
proceed in an action in personam against the appellant who authorized the
disbursement and I agree that the action can be enforced through a
proceeding in rem
On the other hand, an action in rem is by simple definition in law, an action against (the ‘res’
in the ship).55
An action in rem is a piece of legal machinery directed against a ship alleged to
have been the instrument of wrongdoing in cases where it is sought to enforce a maritime or
statutory lien or in a possessory action against the ship whose possession is claimed. A
Judgment in rem is a judgment good against the whole world. This does not mean the vessel
is the wrongdoer but that it is a means by which the wrongdoer (its owner) has done to some
other party. It is the means by which the wrongdoer is brought before the court as a
defendant. It is accepted legal theory that an action in rem is procedural. The purpose is to
secure the defendant owner’s personal appearance”56
.
In Amsons Worldwide (Nig.) v. Supermaritime (Nig.) Ltd57
it was decided that:
an action in rem affords the Plaintiff the opportunity to obtain a pre-trial
and pre-judgment adequate security (by bond, guarantee or bail or letter of
indemnity) for the satisfaction of any claims the Plaintiff has against the
offending ship or res in the event of obtaining judgment against the owner
of the res ... an admiralty action in rem has been described as an action
against a res - the thing: invariably the ship itself. See The Longford (1881)
6 P.D. 60. It may be instituted against the proceeds of sale by the court of
the res – the thing: in such a case the plaintiff may cause the res to be
arrested if found within the jurisdiction. The foundation of an action in rem
is the lien resulting from the personal liability of the owner of the res. See
The Utopis (1893) A,C. 492. Also the Nigerian case of Anchor Ltd v. The
Owner of the Ship Eleni 1 FSC 14, 15; Nigerian Shipping Cases Vol. 1
page 42, Foster Sutton, FCJ defined “action in rem” as follows: “An action
in rem is one in which the subject-matter is itself sought to be affected, and
in which the claimant is enabled to arrest the ship or other property and to
have it detained until his claim has been adjudicated upon or until security
by bail has been given for the amount or for the value of the property
proceeded against where that is less than the amount of the claim. The
definition accorded “action in rem” by Foster Sutton, Federal High Court
54
. (1998) 4 KLR (Pt. 61)769 at 792, paras. B-C,
55
M/V Mustafa v. Afro Asian Impex Ltd & Anor. (2001 – 2003) 9 NSC, 64.
56
Dictum of Ogwuegbu, J.S.C., in Rhein Mass Und See Schiffahrskontor GMBH & Ors V. Rivway Lines
Limited (1998) 5 NWLR (PT. 549) 265; (1998) 4 S. C. 73,
57
(2003-2008) 10 NSC 98.

11. Justice of Nigeria quoted supra was followed by the present Supreme Court
in Rhein Mass Und See GMBH v. Rivway Lines Ltd (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt.
549) 26558
Generally, under the AJA, an action in personam may be brought in the FHC in all cases
within the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court, there are however some claims which the Act
provides that, they “may” be brought in rem, and these claims include the following:
a) claims for possession, ownership, mortgage of a ship or of any share in a
ship; b) claims for damage done by a ship either by collision or otherwise;
c) claims between co-owners relating to the possession, ownership,
operation or earning of a ship; d) claims for the enforcement of a maritime
lien or other charge on a ship relating to: i. Salvage ii. damage done by a
ship iii. crew members wages iv. masters disbursements e) claims brought
under Section 2 of the Admiralty Act in which the relevant person was the
owner, charterer or in possession or control of the ship or a related ship
when the cause of action arose; f) claims for port, harbour, canal or light
toll charges or dues; and g) claims resulting from loss or damage to goods.
A judgment obtained in an action in rem provides no basis for imposing
personal liability on the ship-owner who has not appeared to defend the
action nor does it attach to any of his other ships.59
However, a judgment in an action in rem does not preclude the claimant from bringing a
subsequent claim in personam against the owner of the vessel in the same claim where the
proceeds of sale of the res are insufficient to cover the damages awarded in
the rem action60
.An action in rem is a piece of legal machinery directed against a ship alleged
to have been the instrument of wrongdoing in cases where it is sought to enforce a maritime
or statutory lien or in a possessory action against the ship whose possession is claimed. A
Judgment in rem is a judgment good against the whole world. This does not mean the vessel
is the wrongdoer but that it is a means by which the wrongdoer (its owner) has done to some
other party. It is the means by which the wrongdoer is brought before the court as a
defendant. It is accepted legal theory that an action in rem is procedural. The purpose is to
secure the defendant owner’s personal appearance”61
.
In Anchor Ltd v. The Owner of the Ship Eleni,62
Foster Sutton, FCJ defined “action in
rem” as follows: “An action in rem is one in which the subject-matter is itself sought to be
affected, and in which the claimant is enabled to arrest the ship or other property and to have
it detained until his claim has been adjudicated upon or until security by bail has been given
for the amount or for the value of the property proceeded against where that is less than the
amount of the claim63
” Though, generally, under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, an action in
58
See Per Aderemi J.C.A. (dissenting judgment) in Amsons Worldwide (Nig,) v. Supermaritime (Nig.) Ltd
(Supra) pages 113 – 114.
59
See M.V. Zack Metal Co. v. International Navigation Corporation. (Supra)
60
See Nelson v Crouch (1863) L.J.C.P 46 at 48; The John and Mary (1859) S.W.A 471.
61
Dictum of Ogwuegbu, J.S.C., in Rhein Mass Und See Schiffahrskontor Gmbh & Ors V. Rivway Lines
Limited (1998) 5 NWLR (PT. 549) 265; (1998) 4 S. C. 73,
62
1 PSC 14, 15; 2 NSC 42.
63
Definition adopted and cited with approval in the lead judgment of Ogundare J.S.C., In Rhein Mass Und See
Schiffahrskontor GMBH & Ors V. Rivway Lines Limited (Supra)

12. personam may be brought in the Federal High Court in all cases within the admiralty
jurisdiction of the Court, there are however some claims which the Act provides that, they
“may” be brought in rem, these claims include the following: a) claims for possession,
ownership, mortgage of a ship or of any share in a ship; b) claims for damage done by a ship
either by collision or otherwise; c) claims between co-owners relating to the possession,
ownership, operation or earning of a ship; d) claims for the enforcement of a maritime lien or
other charge on a ship relating to: i. Salvage ii. damage done by a ship iii. crew members
wages iv. masters disbursements e) claims brought under Section 2 of the Admiralty Act in
which the relevant person was the owner, charterer or in possession or control of the ship or a
related ship when the cause of action arose; f) claims for port, harbour, canal or light toll
charges or dues; and g) claims resulting from loss or damage to goods.
Though, a judgment obtained in an action in rem provides no basis for imposing personal
liability on the ship-owner who has not appeared to defend the action nor does it attach to any
of his other ships. See M.V Zack Metal Co. v. International Navigation Corporation
(supra). However, a judgment in an action in rem does not preclude the claimant from
bringing a subsequent claim in personam against the owner of the vessel in the same claim
where the proceeds of sale of the res are insufficient to cover the damages awarded in
the rem action64
.
5. Limitation Periods for Making Maritime Claims
Under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, the limitation period for making a maritime claim or
on a claim on a maritime lien or other charge is the limitation period that would have been
applicable to the claim if the claim had been made otherwise than under Admiralty
Jurisdiction Act, which would imply the application of other laws which prescribes a
limitation period such as the Hague Rules applicable in Nigeria by the Carriage of Goods by
Sea Act, which prescribed a limitation period of one year for certain classes of claims and the
Merchant Shipping Act which prescribe a two year period for claims involving
salvage. However, if no such claim could have been so made, a period of three years after the
cause of action arose. The general rule on statutory interpretation is that the provisions of a
specific enactment override the provisions of general enactment on the subject. This would
imply that, the provisions of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act takes precedence over statutes
with general application. It is noteworthy that, under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, statutes
with specific application of limitation period on a claim - the limitation period fixed in
relation to maritime claim by any enactment or law - takes precedence over the limitation
prescribed by the Act.65
The Limitation Act provides that, actions including actions founded on simple contract or
recovery of any sum, brought to court after the expiration of six years from the date of which
the cause of action accrued are statute bared, thus unenforceable.66
The general restriction
limiting the time within which actions founded on contract or tort must be brought does not
apply to any cause of action within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court
which is enforceable in rem except an action to recover a seaman’s wages67
.
64
See: Nelson v Crouch (1863) L.J.C.P 46 at 48; The John and Mary (1859) S.W.A 471.
65
See s. 18 (2) AJA
66
Section 7 (1)(a) and (e) of the Limitation Act 1966
67
See s. 7(3); Rhein Mass Und See Schiffahrskontor Gmbh & Ors V. Rivway Lines Ltd. (Supra) at 789, para.
H, per Ogwuegbu JSC.

13. 6. Foreign Jurisdictional Clause
A foreign Jurisdictional clause is an ouster clause in a maritime contract agreement, which
ousts the jurisdiction of the Court in Nigeria to entertain or hear any dispute on a maritime
claim but, vests the jurisdiction in a foreign court. In Nigerian maritime jurisprudence, a
foreign Jurisdictional clause is not enforceable thus:
any agreement by any person or party to any cause, matter or action, which
seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Nigeria, is null
and void, if it relates to - any of the maritime claims discussed in this legal
Illumination or - matter falling under Admiralty Jurisdiction Act and if —
(a) the place of performance, execution, delivery, act or default is or takes
place in Nigeria; or (b) any of the parties resides or has resided in Nigeria;
or (c) the payment under the agreement (implied or express) is made or is
to be made in Nigeria; or (d) in any admiralty action or in the case of a
maritime lien, the plaintiff submits to the jurisdiction of the Court and
makes a declaration to that effect or the rem is within Nigerian
jurisdiction; or (e) it is a case in which the Federal Government or the
Government of a State of the Federation is involved and the Federal
Government or Government of the State submits to the jurisdiction of the
Court; or (f) there is a financial consideration accruing in, derived from,
brought into or received in Nigeria in respect of any matter under the
admiralty jurisdiction of the Court; or (g) under any convention, for the
time being in force to which Nigeria is a party, the national court of a
contracting State is either mandated or has a discretion to assume
jurisdiction; or (h) in the opinion of the Court, the cause, matter or action
should be adjudicated upon in Nigeria68
”.
In the case of Lignes Aeriennes Congolese vs. Air Atlantic Nigeria Ltd69
the Court of
Appeal considered the effects of section 20 of the AJA on the enforceability of arbitration
agreements with a foreign forum. The appellant, a commercial airline and national carrier of
the Democratic Republic of Congo with its head office in Kinshasa entered into an Aircraft
lease agreement with the respondent, a Nigerian company with its head office in Lagos. By
virtue of Section 7 of the agreement the parties agreed the procedure for dispute settlement as
arbitration and the applicable law Congolese Law. Article 7 of the agreement states: - “The
present agreement shall be governed by Congolese positive law. Any dispute relating to the
execution, the interpretation and/or the termination of the present agreement shall be settled
in a friendly way between the parties. If they fail to do so, the dispute shall be referred to
arbitration by both Presidents of Kinshasa and Lagos Bars.” Article 8 of the agreement
provides thus:-“For any usual notification: the parties have chosen residence at their
respective head offices as mentioned in the preamble to the present agreement.” A dispute
arose between the parties. AAN filed an action at the Federal High Court Lagos. AAN’s
claim before the FHC was for the sum of 169,794 USD (one hundred and sixty-nine
thousand, seven hundred and ninety-four United states dollar) being consideration for the
lease of Cargo Aircrafts to LAC. AAN filed a motion against LAC’s Boeing 737 with Reg.
No. 9Q CNK seeking to prevent it from leaving jurisdiction as security for the sum of
169,794 USD. LAC filed a preliminary objection to the claim by the AAN on the basis that
by the lease agreement the party had chosen the Congolese law to apply to their relationship
and therefore the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned trial judge
in his judgment disagreed with the defendant/appellant and held that it had jurisdiction to
68
S. 20 AJA.
69
(2005) 11 CLRN 55

14. entertain the suit despite the provisions as to arbitration and governing law contained in the
agreement.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court agreed that the lower court has and
possesses the requisite statutory jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s suit. The court
found that the real and combined effect of Articles 7 & 8 of the Aircraft Lease Agreement
entered into by the parties was and remains to oust the jurisdiction of the lower court in
respect of disputes arising from the said agreement. The court found that the agreement of the
parties was within the contemplation of the provisions of section 20 of the Admiralty
Jurisdiction Decree and was thereby rendered null and void. The decision of the Court of
Appeal may be compared with the earlier decision of the Court in the case of M.V
Parnomous Bay & Ors vs. Olam Nigeria Plc70
. In the M.V Parnomous Bay case the effect
of section 20 on an arbitration clause in a bill of lading came under consideration. The court
upheld the decision of the lower court not to stay court proceedings pending reference to
arbitration in London. Galadima, J.C.A., delivering the lead judgment stated that the object
of section 20 was to limit enforceable arbitration agreements to those having Nigeria as its
forum. The court reasoned that since the object of the arbitration clause in the bill of lading is
to oust the jurisdiction of Nigerian courts to exercise its admiralty jurisdiction over the case,
the said clause is null and void.
Section 20 relied upon had been criticized in the earlier case of the Owners of M.V Lupex
vs. Nigerian Overseas Chartering and Shipping Ltd71
by Uwaifo JCA (as he then was) as
“walking on its head, a section that was wrongly thought out and badly drafted, an
inappropriate provision of the law whose meaning cannot be comprehended.” In the case
of JFS Investment Ltd. v. Brawal Line Ltd. & Ors72
Adekeye, JSC reaffirmed that s.
20 AJA has virtually removed the element of court’s discretion in deciding whether to uphold
a foreign jurisdictional clause.
7. Conclusion
The Nigerian maritime sector has great potentials and it has the capacity to rival crude oil as
our highest foreign exchange earner if it is well managed because of our natural endowment
with a large coastline and natural resources. Our admiralty courts starting from the FHC as
the court with the original and exclusive admiralty jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal and the
Supreme Court which is the apex court of the land must all brace up and ensure the just and
quick delivery of judgments in Nigeria on admiralty matters. It is a national disgrace that
Nigerians are even willing to agree to look for other faster and more reliable means of justice
delivery by agreeing to insert clauses on their admiralty contracts and transactions that tend to
oust the jurisdiction of the Nigerian courts in matters that the CFRN 1999 has clearly vested
jurisdiction on the Nigerian Courts. The key institution in the maritime sector must be
developed for enhanced service delivery to ward off competition from other West African
countries so that Nigeria can take her rightful place as the maritime giant of Arica.
70
(2004) 5 NWLR 1
71
[(1993 – 1995) NSC 182]
72
(2010) 7-12 KLR (Pt. 286) 2611 @ page 2633, para. D,