Court restrains Shippers Council from invading firm

By Robert Egbe

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has restrained Fabiola Trading Company; Moses Olayemi Fadipe, who is coordinator of Port Standing Task Team and Nigerian Shippers’ Council from invading CMA CGM Nigeria’s premises with armed men to harass workers.

Justice Peter Lifu made the order sequel to a September 27 ex-parte motion filed and argued by the counsel to the plaintiff, Babajide Koku.

The judge stopped both respondents from intimidating the workers “with a view to compel or coerce them into releasing the goods shipped by the 1st defendant/respondent under B/L NAM9246749 (Container Nos. TGHU1294951).

He held that the order stands “pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed but shall be served on the defendants within 72 hours.”

Justice Lifu, however, ordered the applicant to file an undertaking to indemnify the affected parties to the tune of N100 million if it was discovered that the court was misled and that the order was unnecessary in the first instance.

He adjourned till October 21 for hearing of the Motion on Notice.

The applicant backed its Motion on Notice with an affidavit deposed to by Oloruntola Sogunro Esq., which averred that the 1st defendant, under a contract of carriage between it and the plaintiff’s principal “carrier”, shipped in one container TGHU1294951 from United States to Nigeria.

“Prior to the above shipment, the 1st defendant was … indebted to the plaintiff for over N20million being accrued demurrage for extended use of its containers…

“That when the subject shipment covered by Bill of Lading NAM9246749 arrived in Nigeria, the plaintiff relying on Clause 13 of its contract of carriage placed a lien on the new shipment and requested that the 1st defendant pay the accrued detention charges on the previous shipments before the plaintiff can issue a release of the subject shipment.”

He averred further that the 1st defendant informed the 2nd defendant, who under the guise of decongesting the ports, had been harassing the plaintiff and its employees to release to the 1st defendant’s the shipment.”