Case Alert – Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court does not end upon the Discharge of Cargo from a Vessel

The Nigerian Supreme Court Affirms that the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court does not end upon the Discharge of Cargo from a Vessel – Glenyork (Nig.) Ltd & Anor v. Panalpina W.T. (Nig.) Ltd [2025] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1992) 363

Facts of the Case

In 1993, Glenyork (Nig.) Ltd (“Glenyork”) imported a large diesel power engine from the United Kingdom through the Port Harcourt seaport. It needed the engine delivered to its project site in Calabar.

Glenyork therefore engaged Panalpina W.T. (Nig.) Ltd (“Panalpina”) to clear the engine and other goods through customs and transport them to Calabar. Glenyork handed over the shipping documents and paid for both services.

Panalpina then subcontracted the job to a haulage company. During the journey, the engine suffered significant damage, allegedly through negligent handling.

Glenyork brought in engineers from the manufacturer in the United Kingdom, and the parties held a joint inspection. Based on the findings, Glenyork’s insurer (“Royal Re-Insurance”) paid £95,927.28 as full compensation, plus £3,734.50 in professional fees.

Glenyork and Royal Re-Insurance then sued Panalpina at the High Court of Lagos State. They sought recovery of the sums paid, together with general damages for breach of contract and negligence.

Panalpina denied liability. It blamed an unforeseen accident, claiming suspected thieves had chased the trailer driver. It also objected to jurisdiction, arguing that the case fell within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court (“FHC”) under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1991 (“AJA”).

The High Court dismissed the objection. It treated the suit as one of bailment and negligence and entered judgment for the Appellants.

On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. In its view, the contract was for transporting the goods to the consignee in Calabar, which placed the action within section 1(1)(g) of the AJA. The Appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue for Determination

The key question was whether section 1(1) and (2) of the AJA extend admiralty jurisdiction to loss or damage that occurs after goods leave the ship, during onward inland transport to the consignee.

The Decision of the Supreme Court on Admiralty Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It agreed with the trial court that the High Court of Lagos State had jurisdiction, because the claim was properly one for negligence and breach of contract in inland transport.

The Court explained when section 1(2) of the AJA applies. First, the contract must cover carriage and delivery of goods from overseas to the importer or consignee, which may involve both sea and land. Second, the land carriage must form part of a single continuous contract.

Under such a contract, the carrier is responsible from the moment it loads the goods abroad until final delivery, even if part of the journey is by land. In that situation, land carriage continues the sea carriage, so the FHC would have jurisdiction over any resulting claim.

This case was different. The Court found that the land carriage from the Customs warehouse in Port Harcourt to Calabar was a separate contract, independent of the earlier sea carriage from the United Kingdom.

The sea carriage ended when the engine reached the Customs warehouse. Only afterwards did Glenyork engage Panalpina, under a distinct arrangement, for the inland journey. Consequently, that inland carriage fell outside admiralty jurisdiction under the AJA.

Commentary on the Decision

The decision in Glenyork is laudable. It gives effect to the clear wording of sections 1(1)(g) and (2) of the AJA: the admiralty jurisdiction of the FHC does not automatically end when cargo leaves a vessel. Earlier Supreme Court decisions had held otherwise, most recently Sopetro Marine Ltd v. N.O. & G.S. Ltd [2025] 7 NWLR (Pt 1988) 75 at 97, paras E-G.

We hope the Supreme Court continues to follow this decision. In particular, it should abandon the “tackle to tackle” principle it once used to limit the FHC’s admiralty jurisdiction, contrary to the plain terms of the AJA.

For practitioners, the lesson is to examine the contract structure closely before choosing a forum. Our case alert on security for costs under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules and our Q2 2025 dispute resolution developments, which discuss Sopetro, cover related maritime questions.