A High Court of Rivers State has struck out a suit
filed against Arik Air Limited by Mr. Peter Ekekwe over
alleged breach of
contract for lack of jurisdiction.
Ekekwe had on April 17, 2009 sued Arik Air for alleged negligence in handling of his luggage on October
2008 at the Port Harcourt International Airport and demanded N10.291million damage.
But in his ruling over the matter, Justice SikaApriokustruck out the suit on the grounds that thecourt lacked
the jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s case of negligence over handling of his luggage as only the Federal
High Court and not the state court could try aviation or aviation related matters.
The judge further held that where the court has no jurisdiction and no enabling provision in the law setting up
that court to transfer the case to a court that has jurisdiction, the suit should be struck out.
According to the judge, there is no enabling provision in the Rivers State High Court Law, upon which the
court is empowered to remit the case file to the chief judge to transfer the suit to the Federal High Court.
The judge said,”Having held that I have no jurisdiction, I cannot proceed to resolve the substantive issues.
Therefore, I have no alternative than to strike out this suit and the suit is hereby struck out. There is no order
as to costs”.
The plaintiff had through his lawyer ,Mr. George Ukaegbu, claimed that he boarded the defendant’s flights
from Port Harcourt to Abuja on October 7, 2008 to attend a meeting with his business associates only to
find out that the airline could not produce his luggage, which he had checked in at the time of boarding.
He also claimed that when the defendant could not explain the whereabouts of his luggage, he left the
airport without collecting his luggage and was compelled to shop for new clothing, toiletries and other
essentials to enable him stay in Abuja for the three days meeting.
But the lawyer to Arik Air, Mr. Adebayo Gbajumo had in his client’s preliminary objection, questioned the
court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit as formulated by the plaintiff and urged the court to determine whether the
suit was not statue -barred and contrary to the Civil Aviation Act.
He therefore urged the court to dismiss the suit for not disclosing any reasonable cause of action and not
showing sufficient fact that the airline is liable to the claims before the court.
Gbajumo further claimed that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the plaintiff’s claims as endorsed
in the Writ of summons and statement of claims, saying the suit as constituted was an aviation matter and that
the law is settled that it is only the Federal High Court that has the jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other
court in civil cases and matters relating to aviation.
He submitted further that in the instant case, since the cause of action is founded on carriage of goods and
passengers, it is only the Federal High Court that can entertain the suit, which is a civil case that pertains to
carriage of passengers and goods.
In urging the court to dismiss the suit because the plaintiff approached the
wrong court by misconceiving
that the cause of action is founded on a mere
contract that was breached, Gbajumo argued that by the
provisions of section
48(2) of Civil Action Act, 2006, as provided for under Article 22(2) of the
Third
Schedule, the liability of the defendant for loss or destruction or delay
of luggage does not exceed $1000 or
its equivalent in a local currency.
He further submitted that from the totality of the evidence adduced at the
trial, the plaintiff did not make out
a case of special damages as to be
entitled to the award of any sum and that in respect of the expenses
allegedly
incurred between October 7 and 10, there are obvious contradictions in the
receipts and that the
receipts are not sufficient proof form the plaintiff’s
claims for refund from the defendants.
But in his reply, Ukaegbu contended that section 63 of the `civil Aviation
Act, 2006 is not applicable in the
case as the suit was a civil matter and not a
criminal offence as envisages under section 63 of the Act.
He also contended that since the Civil Aviation Authority is not a party in
the suit as envisaged by the Act,
the suit is therefore not within the purview
of section 63, which has the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal
High Court.
Culled from Leadership 
No comments:
Post a Comment