Facts:

The appellant is engaged in shipping business and duly registered with the respondent as a shipping agency. In furtherance of its business, the appellant claims that it sought the respondent’s approval for the berthing of a vessel; MT Kriton. The vessel arrived the Calabar Fairway Buoy on 17 December 2010 – the same date communicated as date of arrival by the appellant to the respondent. However, the appellant claims that the respondent failed to comply with the customary practice in the shipping industry whereby vessels are berthed according to their order of arrival when it allowed another vessel- MT Farandol which arrived after the MT Kriton to berth out of turn and ahead of the appellant’s vessel- MT Kriton.

The delay in berthing MT Kriton occasioned by the improper and illegal berthing of MT Farandol by the respondent before the MT Kriton, exposed the appellant to additional costs including demurrage liability, costs of logistics, loss of business opportunity, loss of productivity to the appellant’s business due to mental, physical and emotion strain suffered by the appellant’s employees due to the action of the respondent.

In its defence, the respondent alleged that the MT Kriton arrived at the Calabar Fairway Buoy on 20 December 2011 as opposed to the 17 December 2011 stated by the Appellant. It is the respondent’s case that the MT Farandol arrived earlier on 19 December 2011 thus the MT Farandol was not berthed out of turn. The Respondent further denied responsibility for any damage suffered by the appellant as it acted lawfully in the berthing of MT Farandol.

In its final decision, the learned judge gave judgement against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.