LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Demurrer Proceedings – Effect of Endorsement of Bill of Lading – Need for Evidence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The obvious implication of the mere endorsement of a Bill of Lading is that a court should be slow to reach a decision in limine as to what the result or consequence of that endorsement is. Such an endorsement without more cannot lead inexorably to a conclusion that property in the goods has thereby passed to the endorsee or that the consignee or endorser has ceased to have a right to institute action upon the bill of lading. It may be necessary to examine the pleadings to see what indeed might have transpired between the parties particularly if there are admissions that could clearly indicate that; or it may be expedient or even requisite that evidence be allowed to guide the course of event. The intention of the parties may be quite crucial.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Brawal Shipping (Nigeria) Ltd. v. F.I. Onwadike Co. Ltd. (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt. 678) 387 at p. 410, cited with approval in Global Transport Oceanico S.A. & Anor v. Free Enterprises Nig. Ltd. (2001) NLC-128331998(SC) at p. 17; Paras A–C.
"The obvious implication of the mere endorsement of a Bill of Lading is that a court should be slow to reach a decision in limine as to what the result or consequence of that endorsement is. Such an endorsement without more cannot lead inexorably to a conclusion that property in the goods has thereby passed to the endorsee or that the consignee or endorser has ceased to have a right to institute action upon the bill of lading. It may be necessary to examine the pleadings to see what indeed might have transpired between the parties particularly if there are admissions that could clearly indicate that; or it may be expedient or even requisite that evidence be allowed to guide the course of event. The intention of the parties may be quite crucial."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Courts should be slow to decide summarily (in limine) the effect of bill of lading endorsement. Endorsement alone does not inexorably pass property or terminate the endorser’s right to sue. The court may need to examine pleadings, admissions, and evidence to determine the parties’ intention. Demurrer proceedings may be inappropriate where evidence is needed. The intention of the parties is crucial. The principle prevents premature dismissal of claims based on technical interpretation of endorsements. The court may allow evidence to clarify the transaction. The mere fact of endorsement does not automatically divest the consignee of standing. Each case depends on its circumstances.
