This appeal is against a judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. The appellant, JFS International, was the plaintiff in a suit filed at the Federal High Court, Lagos. In its statement of claim, the appellant claimed against the respondents, Brawal Line Ltd, the owners and charterers of the MV Ndoni River and the MV Ndoni River jointly and severally for loss or damage to cargo carried from Hamburg, Germany, to Lagos/Apapa, Nigeria. The appellant initiated its suit in the Federal High Court two years later. This prompted the first respondent, Brawal Line Ltd, to file a motion to dismiss the suit on the ground that it was time-barred. The trial Judge granted the motion. The appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial Court. The appellant appealed to this Court.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The lower Court relied on an argument propounding a one-year time bar, though the Court agreed that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act Cap 44, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, (COGSA) was not the applicable law to determine the time bar. The clause in the bill of lading calls for an inquiry into the Hague Rules as enacted in the country of shipment - that is, the Federal Republic of Germany. The issue is whether, as stipulated in cl 2 of the bill of lading, the lower Court ought to have directed a determination of the applicable enactment in the country of shipment. It is commonly appreciated by the parties that the bill of lading formed the basis of the contract between the parties and that the Hague Rules were incorporated therein. Nigeria adopted the Hague Rules and they were incorporated into our domestic law since 1926 by virtue of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act which makes the Hague Rules applicable by law to every contract of carriage of goods by sea covered by a bill of lading where the port of shipment is a port within Nigeria. The Hague Rules constitute the Schedule to our Carriage of Goods by Sea Act but as a matter of statute, the Rules apply only to outward voyages from a Nigerian port. In the case of inward voyages, the Hague Rules become applicable as a matter of agreement, usually by virtue of incorporation in a clause in the bill of lading referred to as the clause paramount.

The Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991 has virtually removed the element of a court's discretion in deciding whether to uphold a foreign jurisdictional clause. Section 20 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991 provides that:

(1) Any agreement by any person or party to any cause, matter or action which seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the court shall be null and void if the place of performance, execution, delivery, act or default takes place in Nigeria; or

(2) Any of the parties resides in Nigeria or has resided in Nigeria; or

(3) The payment is made or is to be made in Nigeria; or

(4) Under any convention for the time being in force to which Nigeria is a party; or

(5) In the opinion of the court, the cause, matter or action should be adjudicated upon in Nigeria.

In this case the default in the shipment was detected during delivery here in Nigeria. The parties reside in Nigeria. The law of the contract in the bill of lading is the Hague Rules to which Nigeria is a party. The Hague Rules are applicable in Germany in view of the Hamburg Rules 1980. The trial Court concluded that the action should be adjudicated upon in Nigeria. The Court of Appeal took the right decision when it did not determine, going by cl 2 of the bill of lading, the effect and applicability of the law of the country of shipment - Germany. This issue is resolved in favour of the respondents against the appellant.

This Court is not called upon to interpret the scope, extent and validity of the Hague Rules as an international treaty or whether it can be recognised under our law and given effect to by our domestic courts in view of s 12 of the 1979/1999 Constitution. It has become part of our municipal law. Rather this Court is called upon to interpret a contract of carriage of goods by sea between two parties who subjected themselves to the terms of their contract as expressed in their bills of lading. This clause in the bill of lading determines the limitation period during which parties can be sued for negligence in the performance of the contract.

The relevant clause of the Hague Rules is art 3.6: 'In any event, the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after the delivery of the goods or the dates when the goods should have been delivered.' The lower Court was right to have dismissed the claim of the appellant for being statute-barred. On 1 October 1960 at Nigerian Independence the Government of the Federation assumed all obligations and responsibilities of the colonial regime of the Government which arose from valid international instruments such as the Hague Rules. Nigeria became a party through exchange of letters between the Hague, the United Kingdom and the Government of Nigeria on 1 October 1960. The Hague Rules were extended to Nigeria as legislation which formed part of our laws before independence, and were received as our laws after independence. They do not require any further ratification as stipulated in s 12 of the 1979 Constitution before they can be applicable. An international agreement embodied in a Convention such as the Hague Rules is autonomous and above the domestic legislation of the subscribing countries and the provisions cannot be suspended or interrupted even by the agreement of the parties. The position is that the Hague Rules apply to inward carriage of goods by sea contracts from another country into Nigeria. The lower Court was right to have reverted to the Hague Rules to determine the period of limitation applicable to the appellant's suit. In the final analysis the substantive claim of the appellant, having been brought more than one year after the accrual of the cause of action, is time-barred. Since the right of action is lost, the cause of action becomes a lame duck.