Facts:

Facts:
The respondent entered into an insurance contract with the appellant to cover
fertilizer products imported from a company known as Adan Trade Limited based
in the United Kingdom. The contract between the respondent and Adan Trade
Limited stated that the consignment was 25,000 metric tonnes but could be 5 per
cent short. The marine insurance contract between the respondent and the appellant
stated that the insurance policy was predicated on the sale invoice between the
respondent and Adan Trade Limited. It was also stated in the marine insurance contract that the ship to convey the consignment must not be more than 15 years
old. The cargo eventually supplied by Adan Trade Limited to be shipped to Nigeria
was 24, 390.832 metric tonnes which was within the contemplation of the parties
as stated in the agreement. When the cargo arrived Nigeria via the Apapa port, it
was discovered that a total of 630.805 metric tonnes were missing from the
consignment.
When a claim was filed by the respondent demanding the sum of $525,000.00
(Five Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand United States Dollars), from the appellant
for the loss, the appellant denied liability and offered a sum ofN3,099,551.37
(Three Million Ninety Nine Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty One Naira, Thirty
Seven Kobo) in full settlement of the loss. The respondent rejected the offer and
sued the appellant at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division for indemnity for the
loss. The appellant contended that the 630.805 metric tonnes missing from the
consignment was within the contemplation of the contract between the respondent
and Adan Trade Limited and as such it was not liable to indemnify the respondent.
The appellant further contended that having earlier filed a claim against the owners
of the ship that transported the consignment, the respondent’s claim against it
was an abuse of court process and as such the court lacked competence to hear
and determine the matter between the parties and that if the earlier claim of the
respondent against the ship owners succeeded, it will amount to double
compensation if the claim against it was granted by the court.
At the end of trial, the court gave judgment in favour of the respondent. The appellant
became aggrieved and filed a notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos
Division praying the court to set aside the decision of the trial court. One of the
arguments of the appellant was that the respondent violated a fundamental warranty
relating to the age of the vessel that conveyed the consignment. It was contended
that the violation of the warranty discharged the appellants from its obligations to
the respondent.