Mohamed Enterprises (T) Ltd vs Pacific International Lines (PTE) Ltd (Civil Case No. 344 of 1997) [1998] TZHC 2185 (30 October 1998)
Judgment
C!VIL CA.SE NO. 344 OF 199?
P!tCIFIC Il''E~~N\TION!.L LIN'J.:S (P':B) L'IS. .DEFE't',TJANT
The plaintiff has brou::;ht a suit fo:r the recovery if liquiua.bd dalllo.ges
amounting to U• .s ::- 237,3,JB.oo The suit o.rises from n shipp:in~ al'rangcment
between the litie;ants. Under t:_1..::1.t arran&•:)'.?le:nt t)1e plaintiff -contracted vtfth
the d,Jfen:lant to carry by sea to do chi, .-J:rtditt the defendant's carsa of ·
. ' -
10,030 b11gs 0f cashew nuts. The cargo ,,16.$ to he ferried in t· 1 0 equal lots of
5040 bags. The first consi,;nment is- sa:i.:l b
1
.12.vc been loadeI on the
defendant's ship christen:xl KO!. J/TI. It is furt:1er eclkg,3d th-:1t the·
defendant mde represcntl".tforu:; to the pl2..intiff th 0 ,'.'c its ves::;els ply directly
to K::,rachi, a journey which talces tuo ,1eeks. It is 110 1 .-1 allc:;od tht tho
defend.ant bre::.ched its warrMtly a11,: .. reps~.tions a~ t1 1 e vessel did not
proceed :iirectly to Cochin. Because of apparantly improper ho.ndlin
0
and
· stm-mse on arrival the ca.sha~-1 nu.ts--were. f oun.1 to h:'.'.vc c:,ne wet, do.m.".1.ged,
spront,d. c.11d rancid. T'n6 cc:trgo in the sccon:1. cmsicnnent of 5040 tans are
se.id to
1
1c,ve been equally c1.ar;m.gc1. on arrival at Coal:lin. So. it i.s nlle;ed
t!1a~ th~ plaintiff suff.erc.-:l loss as a result.
The defen:lant 112.s denied all or an;y: la;):i.lity. In tancl::c:m ,
1
ith the-other -
pi'.t!'8.(Jraphs in his written st~.tenunt of d2fence which tr::1.versc the plP.intiff' s·
plcadi.1::;, the defenla.11t h,.,,s raised t-.'O ;ircl1mi..,2.ry points •of law.. The -one
is th2.t this. Court is n-::it sei.s~:: o:i: jurisriction t.::i try this suit; the other
is that th,,, suit is time- ments in reL-.tfon to the first objection ·zire bo.scd on tli.e content and
l0r;al effect o:f -1. bill J.a1in,, :w.rt ho 1 v p:::rties tr.;, n contract for the carriage
.. -;arrerl. The: o';j0ctions :,,ere arr;ued by Pr. Dc:.me
Tom Nyrul'.luca, leo.rned coun':;:.cl for the Jef,:?a'j;.1t.
_,'.r
2
Mr. Nyandur.;a has tc:iken tb-: point th.2,t under shippin·
0
law :md practice,
a bill of lc;J_,Jinc cm
1
.iodies the terms and c,:mditions for the carrfrtge
of r::;oods by sea. So tht, in essence, a bill of lad,"n:;ds considered
to· be a contr<1.ct or eviderico of it In support of this argurnont he has
cited
11
CAP.V:8R - Carrb< 0 /~ by Sea:i 13th md.ition Vol.l, Che,pter 3
1
pnrasraph ,%.
In particular, le2.rned Jcfnce counsel reiics on cluuse 30. That
clause stc.tes tbat the 2.p1_,licc.bl lf..-i ihail be Singapore_ lc.1-I ru).(~ that
disputes shaJ.l be deter:11ined by courts ih :3inr;G.::;>ore -unlo::n tJ1e carrier
at:;rees ot;1orwiso in writin~•
It is contended bnt t:;,;; question of bills of lading issues in one country
but made subj oct to t;10 12.1-1 o:f another country is conmion practice elsei-:hore~
inclur:1in:- 'En
6
lancl. iie cites C.HVE:1 .. Carriace by :_;Gn, para.c:raph 57 and
. _ .... ,.,..··--,·---...-.-:•",•:-:::..;,a-----,··~,·• .....
so ct ion L: f' +.he Car:..·ia;3e o? Goods ;)y SGi'.'. Ordin,mce, Cc:::.p 164, in sup;)ort of
his ars,.1mcnts. Accordin::; t:i ,.c2.rncd C'.)Unsel, 3.S indeed the position of
the lc1.w app2ars to be, c::very bill of la'.lin,; issued ir, Tanzanir:
1
• will have
effect subject to tho Rules a.ppe,::i.rin·c: in U10 Schedule to Cap. 164. In En,:;lnnd,
in nddition to bills of l.,:,din,-; conplyin ,.,ith t)ic 2.ccept,:1.bl0 is for parties to
enter into contr2cct to oust the ordino.ry cou:C'ts from t'.1"'ir jurisdiction.
Now, the jurisdiction of courts in th.is country is a cr.enture of st2.tute.,
The courts exerdP"' ;/"l"P.rs conforrc l u:,on them by le.,;isl;:,:tion i:h:,'c h::i.s been
enacte::l hy Parliam:.,nt. The exorciso of tliose po,-1ers,. their jurisdiction,- so to
speak, is, therefore, mandab:i•.l by the ,,ill bf thG pco
1
Jle.i1ules to the Dritish
Act; if n:n th,,, other
1
,.c:'cncl, it is L';ov0rnc,1
1
)y forcir;n 19.w, the quesb """'°-whether·
or not t110 Ifaq1.:, :t>ules ap:;,ly to it ei~:;n cocurts. L:
Mr. Mustafa Chandoo coμtends. th.at tb.e .. question of jurisdiction ls tied
up wi-ch the production of evLlence. In other wol'd.s.it can only be proved
by ev•till, in the absence' of rui express
state . ;: '· ; ,, ; i" rl '"''"'"11• 4 on thG fore i:,.n country in quest ion. :So it i,s .ar::pj.
since the p:,.rties h•:,rc cnntro.ct(;d to h2.ve any
1
isi;iute arisin::; 1Jetween them
settled accor,;lin:; to i3in,:;a.pore Law
1
only courts in :3inc:2.pore h.::i.ve jurisdiction.
In otbcr words, p.:crties ric.y oust the jurisdiction o:f tl1is court by a private
in
trec:.ty/preferance to subrnittins to fo1dcncc 1-:hetb.er or J1ot · the pr;trties are bound by Sin,·:apore law•
1
,Jithout
prejudice to that aruncnt, however, learned counsel ar
0
'Ues that a contract
that onsts the jurisdiction of t16 crnrt is 2,;:;ainst ::mblic policy. He has
m:1.de the point tll2,t tl1e defond.2.nt is confused between cl1oice of law and
choice of jurisdiction. The.t ::.ltJ;iouj1 tl1er~ is nothing obj e:ctionable for parties
agre0inr; to their contr,:ctu.:.l rGlhti0nships bein:=:; 2:overned by tho laws of
n foreign country, 1,111,::i.t i,s not p,.:;rmissiblc anr
: I
3
'rhe.y oannot be abridged. or broui;ht to n2.u;:;}1t by e.. priv2.te treaty of
individuals.
Wha.t appears to 1·10 th,) co.S('; h,irc ho1,1.ever, is not that the parties to
this case submitted to che· juris·liction ::f c,mrts in Sinrapore. They
business relationship ,•ms t::w lm, of Sin1;v:pore, · All tb.e.t they made was a
chc,ice of the 12.w, not of · courts. It is this court uhich vilJ. finally
determine ,;1cl.:':0r or no·i:: t:1-2:c forci:::,n la· r will bin,J. t:1e liti--::.smts ...
The a))par,mt our.,t,'"r of c·:urts in priv2.te arra.11 '<ncnts is_ co1'1:nonplctce
in nr
1
)itr.-".tion clauses th.10 lex fori -i-r, tlv c2.s0 o.bove cited e:vcm
.,. '4 J,; t:" -------=---- ... ..,,....,,.. ....
though the parties '::.::i.d 1:,c1.m 1 .l V10!11s·:::lvcs to be ;:;ovcred by American law. The
first o1Jjection 1,,rould, therefore, failt frequently app·rei,.'ll- law, a.r in commercial and lmildinc;
C'.)ntracts. In 0112 snch cc1.s, liti jJ_nt,s 1 :hic:1 1-Jcn-·0 do:.1ici10cl in India
arbitraticn tribu:1e.l in Hew Yourk accor-.lin· to ·i:.be r1,les ol tb.2 Ar;ierican
.,.rbitrdion f'..ssocir.tion,/ Disputes havin:; arisen between the l')-?trU.<:;,s 2.1)out
the licihility of tJ.c respon 'c-,·rl: tc s
1
1ip ;:;oocls not delivered., the offended
party reforro,1 th,, m.::-.tt2r to th:1 s.rbi tr2:c ion of V12 AT,1°ican .\ssoci..?.tion.
In the el1'1 tb.os,:) m3.tt,Jr,s reach,:orl th,: -Supreme Court of Indi2, in
NichaGl GoloJetz V. ,Scr.:,jud·:lin & Co (1963) I.oI.R. loL}L:-. 1/hen de.0.ling
·----.- ................,__,. . .... ..... .....-. .... ....,,.___
,-,ith ·rhich l,'.'t'.' was n:rrllic2.ble_ t;·J.o suprema court of In,li2. sai::J. t',1is
o.t pn.c;c 10
1
+7:
ii(7) Jut on the visw expremsed by USt ,\re <le0m it 2.dv-iso.ble
not to eX7?res.s 2.ny opinion on the qu,:;stion ns t-'.) tho law
ap:plic2.blJ to t::,, contro.ct. I-c ,-rill be for -::;:i..,:, court
tryin::: the suit to deal ,,ith the qu,istiont an-J. to docide
th'" suitJ
1
. Accordi.n;c, t,,:;i .'.i.:liat .!.nr1ian r=a.t...- ~~ M •:'"_--:;-• "
1
a.·,r eon,,:'i'i::,:.a-t: <t&
be houn1. by a :fs :,c..ve jurisclictinn to ,Jetcrraine
··t· ff· " ti · , -· • d t b · ext en·:• .; -: 1 -.,1· J_l bind tl:l.e hG e · icacy o:c ,.1,::-.t ~ an. o w .. t·.-c v .,_
..
So that •.rhcther o:r- not a foreicn l2,v1 ·rill b:J 2.p·()lic.s.bl:: is n trici.blc issue
to be decide:.l :;n the: evidence to be add.uce·
1
.• A1rl, .'.:'J3 it h2..·,:,1)ened, the courts
l ·n I11dia preferred -1-0 an.,.,ly t
4 ...
I now coine to the question of limitc.tion. The issue here, like in the
case i,f jurisdiction, is whether the statutory law of limitation will be
superceded by the private arrangements of the parties. Dy thdr private
treaty c'.S contained in clause 9 of the bill of lading very short periods
of limitation are stipulated. The pbadin:;s shm-, tho.t the pD_rties are
at variance whether the suit is ba.sod on the bill of ladine or on a simple
contrac:.o Thus which law of limLation n:)plies is another t:i2.ble issue.
It must ,mit the trial of the suit. Thus the seond objection would D.lso
fail.·
In the final result the two prelimin:,,ry objections are dismissed.-
.Costs to abide the result.
Delivered.
J. M. Mackanja
JUDGE
30/10/98 For Pbiirl:iff For Detendant ·.·~ 30/10/98 Coram: Ma.ckanja, J For Phtintiff For Defendant Order: Mediation.--
J. M. M.-::.ckanja
J1f.JGE
-------
30/10/1998
•- r <!I
_. ·(' --.~~-: .,..
<'.
:J.,,~··'