Tropical Steamship Co SA (Tropical), the time charterer of the MV Lekhaven, filed a lawsuit against the voyage charterer, Courtage et Gestion Maritime Ivoiriens (CGMI), for unpaid freight, and requested the arrest of a cargo of 232 bundles of wood on board the ship. The wood bundles were sold by Ifex-Ci to Interwood SA and Interforet SA (third party interveners), which contracted CGMI to carry them from Abidjan, Ivory Coast, to Casablanca, Morroco. CGMI issued the bills of lading for that cargo. Interwood and Inferforest appeared in the process claiming the property over the arrested cargo and requested its release.

The Court of First Instance admitted the request to the third party interveners and ordered the release of the cargo (or the amount resulting from its judicial sale). Tropical appealed and the Court of Appeal (CA) affirmed the decision. The CA stated that a bill of lading constitutes evidence of the receipt of the cargo and evidence of the contract of carriage, and entitles the holder to dispose of the merchandise referred therein and to demand the carrier to deliver the cargo described in the bills. The documents submitted by the third-party interveners are real bills of lading, not master’s receipts, as alleged by Tropical. And if they are considered 'receipts', according to art 3.7 of the Hague Rules, such documents grant the right to the voyage charterer, CGMI, to exchange them for bills lading issued by the carrier. Those bills of lading were issued in due form and signed by the master responsible for the carriage under the bills of lading. The issuance of that document by CGMI in its capacity of the carrier obliges it to carry and deliver the cargo at the destination to its owner or consignee, an obligation that was not performed as the shipment was not delivered at the Port of Casablanca because of the arrest. Tropical recurred this decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC), alleging that the bills of lading issued by CGMI were invalid as the only party entitled to issue such a document was Tropical.

Held: The SC affirmed the decision. The SC stated that the bills of lading submitted by the third party interveners proved their ownership of the arrested cargo. Regarding that contract of carriage, Tropical was not the carrier but CGMI. Therefore, Tropical has a right of action against the voyage charterer but not against the owners of the cargo.