EMIRATES AIRLINE VS UZOAKU KENECHUKWU NGONADI CITATION: LER[2014]CA/L/1241/2010 AREAS OF LAW: AVIATION LAW-LIABILITY OF AIRLINES, CONTRACT-BREACH OF CONTRACT EVIDENCE-EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE, SPECIAL DAMAGES, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE SUMMARY OF FACTS: The Plaintiff/Respondent bought the Defendant/Appellants airline ticket (electronic) for the sum of US $2,067 (Two thousand and sixty seven dollars) to enable her travel from Dallas - Houston -Dubai- Lagos and back. When the Plaintiff/Respondent turned up at the airport to travel on 17/12/07, the Defendant/Appellant denied her boarding and made no alternative provision for her carriage without offering any reason for their failure to carry the Plaintiff/Respondent. The Respondent made alternative arrangement and eventually travelled on 19/12/07 and then sought from the Appellant a refund of the two (2) tickets (Emirates and American Airlines tickets). The Plaintiff/Respondent, in the consequence of the above development, instituted an action against the Defendant/Appellant for breach of the terms of the contract of carriage with the Plaintiff/Respondent. The trial Judge entered judgment for the Plaintiff/Respondent. Dissatisfied with the trial Court’s judgment, the Defendant/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. HELD: Appeal Succeeded Partially ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION: Whether in the light of the trial courts finding that the contract between the parties was an international contract of carriage by air, governed by the Montreal convention 1999 and the Civil Aviation Act, 2006 and underpinned by the Appellants Conditions of carriage of passengers and baggage, the court was right to hold that the Appellants refusal to carry the Respondent from Dallas on the 17th of December, 2010 amounted to a breach of its contract of carriage with the Respondent and that no limitation of liability applied to the contract. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he awarded the sum of N2.5M in general damages to the Plaintiff after awarding “A ticket refund in full without any deduction or charge Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he awarded the Plaintiff a full ticket refund without deductions when it was not claimed by the Plaintiff Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he awarded the sum of N250, 000 in legal fees when the Plaintiff claimed N 1,000,000 but led no evidence in proof Whether there was justifiable ground for the learned trial Judge to have held as follows: I do not believe that neither the Plaintiff nor her agent did not reconfirm the ticket issued her or in any way defaulted in sustaining the validity of the issued ticket. I believe PWI Clement Dolor acting on behalf of the Plaintiff personally or through Simba Travels & Tours limited made such reconfirmation of the said ticket as indeed would be expected of an experienced Travel Agency staff such as himself. Whether the trial courts belief that the Defendant Airline was constantly engaged by either the Plaintiff in Dallas or her agent in Nigeria for the period leading up to her travel date or the 17th December, 2007 and its ruling that no valid reason was conveyed to the passenger/plaintiff for refusing to carry her on her due date is supported by evidence RATIOS: EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE-WHAT IT ENTAILS “It is not in doubt that evaluation of evidence entails much more than the Judge saying I believe or I didnt believe a witness. There must be on record the reasons why the court arrived at its conclusions for preferring one evidence to the other”. PER IYIZOBA JCA CROSS-EXAMINATION- FAILURE TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESS ON VITAL ISSUE - EFFECT OF “The law is that the effect of failure to cross-examine a witness upon a particular matter is a tacit acceptance of the truth of the evidence of the witness”. PER IYIZOBA JCA LIABILITY OF AIRLINES-WHETHER AIRLINES CAN INCUR LIABILITY FOR DELAYED OR DENIED BOARDING “Airlines can incur liability for delayed or denied boarding. PER IYIZOBA JCA RELIEF-WHETHER A COURT CAN AWARD SAME TO A PARTY WHERE IT WAS NOT CLAIMED “It is trite law that a court has no power to award to a claimant that which was not claimed. PER IYIZOBA JCA SPECIAL DAMAGES- REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW FOR CLAIM FOR SPECIAL DAMAGES “The claim is for special damages and the law requires that there must be strict proof of same”. PER IYIZOBA JCA COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES-DISTINCTION OF “A compensatory damage is a sum of money awarded by a Court to indemnify a person for the particular loss, detriment or injury suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of another. They differ from punitive damages, which punish a Defendant for his conduct as a deterrent to the future commission of such acts”. PER AUGIE, JCA MONTREAL CONVENTION- OBJECT OF “The object of a treaty like the Montreal Convention is to provide a uniform international code in the areas that it covers”. PER AUGIE, JCA CASES MENTIONED: Adesule v. Mayowa & Ors (2011) LPELR-3591 (CA) Badmus V. Abeaunde (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt 627) 493, Cameroon Airlines V. Otutuizu (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1238) 512 SC Emirates Airline v Uzoaku Kenechukwu Ngonad (CA/L/198/2012) delivered on 19/12/2013. Gaff v Paye (2003) 8 NWLR (Ft 823) 583; Harka Air Services (Nig.) Ltd. V. Keazor (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt1264) 320 S. Oforlete v. State (2000) 12 NWLR (PL 681) 415 @ 436; STATUTES REFERRED TO: Civil Aviation Act 2006 The Montreal Convention 1999
Posted on: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:43:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015