SHERA VALI ENTERPRISE LTD VS SAFMARINE CONTAINER LINE
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- BARBARA TETJUSTICE JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS)
- JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURTTEH-CHARWAY (J)
Areas of Law
- Maritime Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a dispute over damaged car batteries shipped from India to Ghana. The plaintiff sued the shipping company for negligence, claiming water damage to the batteries due to a leaky container. The court found that while the defendant was negligent in providing an unsuitable container, the plaintiff's claim was ultimately time-barred under the Hague Rules. The case highlights important principles in maritime law regarding carrier liability, the duty to provide seaworthy vessels and containers, and the strict application of time limits for bringing claims in shipping disputes. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of timely filing of suits in maritime cases and the carrier's responsibility to provide suitable equipment for cargo transportation.
The Plaintiff filed the instant writ for redress and for the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons which were:
1. Recovery of the sum of $38,223.42 being cost of Battery Lead Acid Accumulators (Car Batteries)
2. Interest on the said sum.
3. Costs on a full indemnity basis.
4. Further Relief as the Court may deem fit.
It was the Plaintiff’s case that it purchased a quantity of car batteries valued at $65,317.46 in India to be transported by the Defendants to the Port of Tema.
According to the Plaintiff, the goods were loaded by the Shippers into the Defendant’s container. However on taking delivery of the goods, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant’s container had leaked and that water had gathered and soaked most of battery cells. The Plaintiff pleaded that the Defendant had been negligent in its transportation of the goods to Tema. The particulars of Negligence were given as:
• That the Defendant had failed to provide a container suitable for the handling and carrying of the battery lead acid accumulators vis-à-vis the nature of the products.
• That the Defendant failed to provide a hermitically sealed and waterproof container for the carriage of the battery lead acid accumulators.
• That the Defendant failed to care for the goods carried.
The Defendant denied liability stating that the Plaintiff took delivery of the goods on 27th June 2011. It then instituted this action on 27th July 2012 which was more than the one year limit provided for by The Hague Rules of 1924 meaning the action was statute-barred.
Furthermore, the Defendant contended that it was the duty of the shipper to have inspected the container before proceeding to stuff goods into it. Having not raised any objection to the container before the voyage, the Plaintiff must be estopped from asserting the contrary.
These issues were settled for trial:
1. Whether or not the quantity of battery lead accumulators (car batteries) imported from India by the Plaintiff through the contract of carriage entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was worth $65,317.46?
2. Whether or not discharge of the Plaintiff’s goods off the Defendant’s vessel constitutes delivery of the goods to the Plaintiff?
3. Whether or not the Plaintiff’s action was brought well outside the one year limit period as provided for by The Hague Rules of 1924 and therefore statute barred?
4. Whether or not it was the duty of the shipper of goods to inspect and vet the Defendant’s container an