Court Orders Emirates Airline To Pay A Lagos Based Lawyer Compensation For Delayed Delivery And Damage To His Luggage.

nd Bag, in the case of Mr. Samuel Olusegun Sipeolu v. Emirates Airline with Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1005/2016. The Plaintiff, Mr. Samuel Olusegun Sipeolu, a Lagos based Lawyer claimed to have boarded the flight of the Defendant  sometimes on the 16^th day of April, 2016 from New York to Lagos wherein the Plaintiff check-in 2 luggages with the Defendant. On arrival at Murtala Muhammed  International Airport on the 17^th of April, 2016, the Plaintiff could only see one luggage while the second was said to have been left at the JFK Airport in New York, and that in realizing the development, he decided to file a report with the agents of the Defendant at the Airport in Lagos and was assured of his luggage the next day, but it was not until 28^th April,2016 that the Plaintiff had access to his luggage even though same had been tampered with and certain items alleged to have been missing. The Plaintiff in support of his case claimed before the Court the following:

1. The sum of USD $1,780.00 as compensation for the damages of the Plaintiff’s bag duly contracted to the Defendant for onward carriage by air from New York to Lagos.
2. The sum of USD $1,780 being compensation for the delay by the Defendant in transporting and delivering the Plaintiff’s checked-in-bag on the 17^th April, 2016, as duly contracted by the Defendant.
3. The sum of USD $10,000,00 as general damages for breach of contract.
4. The sum of USD $ 10,000,00 as general damages for negligence.
5. The sum of USD $ 10,000.00 being cost of the action.
6. The sum of USD $ 2,500.00 for loss of professional time at the rate of $500.00 per hour incurred on the 28^th April, 2016 for retrieval of delayed check-in-bag.
7. The Sum of ₦25,000.00 being the cost of car-hire service engaged on the 28^th April, 2016 to retrieve the bag from the Airport.
8. Interest in the above stated sums at the rate of 21% per annum from 18 April 2016 till judgement be given and thereafter at the rate of 10% per annum till liquidation.

The Defendant Airline on the other hand pleaded among others to have offered the Plaintiff settlement at the limit of liability subject to proof of loss under the applicable legal regime of the Montreal Convention as well as offered USD $150.00 for the alleged delay to deliver the Plaintiff’s luggage. They as well pleaded the conditions of carriage of passengers and baggage and items and conditions of the air ticket issued to the Plaintiff, stressing that, the extent of liability is determined by the Montreal Convention with particular reference to Article 15 of the Defendant’s conditions of carriage – liability of Damage, and that where the plaintiff desires compensation for the said items, he should have taken out an insurance or made a special declaration of interest in the said items and paid necessary fees/charges in accordance with Article 22 of the said Convention. Justice A.M. Anka, in a judgement delivered on the 26^th day of March, 2019, which was made available to TheNigerialawyer (TNL), limited itself on the issue of delay of delivery and the damage to the Plaintiff’s 2^nd bag and not missing items. Speaking on late delivery, the Court asked what precisely is “Operational Reasons” which the Defendant had argued as reason for its act. The Court found that it has not seen any issue raised by the Defendant in their statement of defence which it can easily refer as “Operational Reasons”, and that no such reason was given by the Defendant in its defence before the Court whether as to security, health, safety operational reasons, or due to the size or weight of the checked baggage as is provided in Article 8.7.3 of the Conditions of Carriage as cited by its defence Counsel himself. The Court held that it is evidence that the Defendant admitted in defence as filed that they offered USD 150.00 for the delay of the Plaintiff’s baggage. The Court further held that the Defendant actually failed to deliver the bag of the Plaintiff at the specified time expected of the Defendant airline, and that the Defendant never denied damage to the bag. “The Defendant did not cross-examine the Plaintiff (PW1) in Court on the allegations of damage to his 2^nd luggage. All the defence Counsel did was to cross-examine the PW1 on the alleged lost items and their receipts of any provided. The issue of the lost items has been waived by the Plaintiff in this case considering their submission before the Court. “From the facts before the Court, the evidence reveals that the Defendant had breached their duty of care owed the Plaintiff herein wherein the Defendant airline had neglected to deliver the Plaintiff’s bag on the 17^th day of April, 2016 as contracted.” (See P. 15). Based on the findings of the Court, the Court held as follows:

1. The sum of 1,131 SDRs or its dollar equivalent as compensation for damage of the Plaintiff’s 2^nd
2. The sum of 1,131 SDRs or its dollar equivalent as compensation for the delay in delivering the Plaintiff’s 2^nd
3. General damages in the sum if USD $1,000 for the breach of Contract and negligence by the Defendant Airline.
4. ₦25,000 for the car hire service engage by the Plaintiff on the 28^th day of April, 2016 to retrieve the bag from the Airport.
5. Cost of action in the sum of ₦1,500,000.00
6. Interest in the above stated sum at the rate of 21% per annum, from 18^th April, 2016 till judgement and thereafter at the rate of 10% per annum, from 18^th April 2016 till judgement and thereafter at the rate of 10% per annum till liquidation.

The Court finally noted that all parties have a right of appeal. Kelvin A. Olu Esq., appeared for the Plaintiff while Samuel Okunneye appeared for the Defendant. TNL recalls that sometime in 2016, Mr. Samuel Olusegun Sipeolu had sued Emirates Airline for breach of contract, and negligence with respect to onward carriage by air.]]>