MENERGY INTERNATIONAL GH. LTD. vs HAPAGLLOYD & ANOR
July 24, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J)
Areas of Law
- Maritime Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
July 24, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This High Court judgment by Justice George K. Koomson arises from a cargo damage dispute involving frozen food shipped by the 1st Defendant via the vessel MOL VOLTA to Ghana’s Tema Port, with the 2nd Defendant operating the terminal. After discharge on 14 March 2012, the refrigerated container was stored at the 2nd Defendant’s terminal, where a survey later found it had been unplugged for 72 hours due to negligence by terminal personnel. The Plaintiff sought USD 95,870.48 for import costs and damages. The 1st Defendant objected, invoking clause 25 of the bill of lading to require German law and Hamburg Court jurisdiction, and argued the Plaintiff lacked capacity because Discovery Spirit was named consignee. The court held clause 25 governs disputes arising during carriage and was inapplicable to post‑discharge damage. Applying Hamburg Rules and Ghana’s Courts Act, it found Ghanaian jurisdiction. On capacity, mercantile custom, BOL endorsement, and Defendants’ conduct established the Plaintiff’s standing. Objections were overruled and costs awarded.
The Plaintiff/Respondent (hereafter called the Plaintiff) contracted 1st Defendant/Applicant (hereafter called the 1st Defendant) to transport frozen food products from Germany to the Tema Port for delivery to a consignee.
The 2nd Defendant, is the Container Terminal Operator at the Tema Port.
Sometime in February 2012, the container holding the frozen food products was dispatched by the 1st Defendant via its vessel the MOL VOLTA (the vessel), from Germany en route to Tema.
The Terms and Conditions of carriage were contained in the accompanying Bill of Lading (BOL). It was a condition of the carriage agreement that the 1st Defendant would maintain the temperature of the container at a set temperature of -20oc during transit.
The vessel arrived at the Tema Port on the 14th March, 2012 and the container holding the frozen food was stored at the 2nd Defendant’s terminal after discharge.
The Plaintiff was informed about the arrival and malfunctioning of the container.
On 19th April, 2012, the 2nd Defendant commissioned a surveyor, Swift Marine Surveys and Logistics Ghana Limited to establish the cause of damage to the cargo whilst at the terminal.
The survey report revealed that the container was unplugged for 72 hours at the Empty Container Bay and this could be attributed to negligence on the part of the receiving clerks and reefer bay monitoring team.
The Plaintiff made a claim for the damaged cargo.
The Defendants have jointly failed to settle the claim of the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff therefore brought the present suit asking for the sum of USD95, 870. 48 being the cost incurred in the importation of the frozen food products damaged by the Defendants and interest on the sum claimed, among other reliefs.
The 1st Defendant has raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Ghanaian Courts to determine the suit and also for lack of capacity on the part of the Plaintiff to bring the present action.
The issues I have been called upon to adjudicate on by this application are as to whether or not the Ghanaian Courts have jurisdiction to determine the suit and whether or not the Plaintiff has capacity to bring the instant suit.
It is to be observed that the Bill of Lading should be the reference document in such a carriage of goods contract.
It is the document that contains the identities, intentions, obligations and rights of the parties.
With respect to the issue regarding jurisdiction, the 1st Defendant has urged this Court to view clause