Facts:

The respondent placed an order for 70,000 pieces of fan regulators from its overseas supplier in China. The goods were shipped on board the vessel CMA CGM OUBANGUI which arrived at Berth 16 Apapa sea port, Lagos, Nigeria. The 1st appellant was the carrier of the goods on board the vessel while the 2nd appellant was the owner of the vessel. Unfortunately, flooding occurred during voyage and some items of the consignment got damaged but despite repeated demands for compensation, the carrier and owner of the vessel failed to compensate the respondent for the loss suffered. Aggrieved, the respondent instituted an action at the Federal High Court seeking for certain reliefs.
At trial, the Bill of Lading was admitted in evidence and on the face of it was stated that it could be used for port to port shipment or combined transport shipment. There was an asterisk in the column for delivery of the goods, and at the bottom was stated that the asterisk is applicable when the document is to be used as a combined transport Bill of Lading. The columns for place of receipt of goods and place of delivery were also asterisked with Apapa, Lagos written as the address. However, the Bill of Lading failed to disclose any form of pre-shipment carriage in China or post-shipment in Nigeria by the carrier. The appellants also filed their defence.
The trial Court in its judgment dismissed the respondent’s suit on the ground that it was time barred.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appellate Court in its decision, allowed respondent’s appeal and ordered that the case be remitted to the trial court and start de novo.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. The respondent also cross-appealed having been dissatisfied with the part of the decision that ordered the matter to start de novo at the trial court.