Maersk Ghana Limited Vrs B. T. L. Limted [2021] GHASC 109 (29 April 2021)

Maersk Ghana Limited Vrs B. T. L. Limted [2021] GHASC 109 (29 April 2021)

The respondent, as consignor, had capacity to sue the appellant carrier for loss of cargo under the bill of lading. The Court of Appeal erred in categorizing substantial damages as nominal; the respondent was entitled to special damages for proven freight, clearing, handling, and fumigation costs, and to substantial general damages for the loss of yams due to the appellant's negligence.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 109
Parties
Defendant/appellant/appellant: Maersk Ghana Limited; Plaintiff/respondent/respondent/cross Appellant: B. T. L. Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
29 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; cross-appeal partially allowed
Legal Topics
Capacity to Sue, Damages for Loss of Cargo, Bills of Lading, Negligence in Carriage of Goods
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Contract Law Capacity to Sue Damages for Loss of Cargo Bills of Lading Negligence in Carriage of Goods

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maersk Ghana Limited

Defendant/appellant/appellant

B. T. L. Limited

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consignor (respondent) had capacity to sue the carrier for loss of cargo under the bill of lading
  2. 2 Whether the award of nominal damages by the Court of Appeal was proper in law
  3. 3 Whether the respondent proved special damages for freight, clearing, handling and fumigation charges

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent, as consignor, had capacity to sue the appellant carrier for loss of cargo under the bill of lading. The Court of Appeal erred in categorizing substantial damages as nominal; the respondent was entitled to special damages for proven freight, clearing, handling, and fumigation costs, and to substantial general damages for the loss of yams due to the appellant's negligence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; cross-appeal partially allowed

Orders

  • Respondent awarded US$12,637.86 as special damages for freight, clearing, handling, and fumigation charges.
  • Respondent awarded US$20,000.00 as general damages for loss of yams.