Whether the Mere Conversion of a Boat Constitutes a Maritime Claim
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria History
Holden at Abuja
On Friday, the 12th day of December, 2025
Before their Lordships
Uwani Musa Abba Aji
Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa
Chidiebere Nwaoma Uwa
Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein
Mohammed Baba Idris
Justices, Supreme Court
SC/CV/790/2018
Between
ABB NG LIMITED APPELLANT
And
1. NUN RIVER VENTURES LTD RESPONDENTS
2. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF LATE MR LUCIUS NWOSU (SAN)
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Chidiebere Nwaoma Uwa, JSC)
Facts
The Respondents commenced an action against the Appellant at the High Court of Lagos State, seeking primarily to recover the sum of $61,000, claimed to be the value of a Yamaha 212 Jet Stream Sports Boat belonging to the 1st Respondent, and allegedly damaged by the Appellant. The Respondents also claimed pre-judgement and post-judgement interest.
The Respondents claimed that the boat was kept at the premises of the 2nd Respondent, and the 2nd Respondent subsequently let the said premises out to the Appellant without extending the terms of the tenancy to the use or possession of the boat. They alleged that the Appellant appropriated the boat to itself without the Respondents’ authorisation and damaged the boat while using it, despite having given the Respondents assurance that the boat would be kept safely.
The Appellant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court of Lagos State to entertain the suit, on the basis that the subject-matter of the claim fell within the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court pursuant to the provisions of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act. In response, the Respondents filed a counter-affidavit, asserting that the claim was merely a simple tortious action founded on conversion, and therefore, within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Lagos State. After hearing the arguments of respective Counsel on the Notice of Preliminary Objection, the trial court upheld the Appellant’s Preliminary Objection and consequently, struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction.
Dissatisfied, the Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and held that the claim was not an admiralty matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, but one on conversion founded on tort which the High Court of Lagos State had the jurisdiction to determine. The Court of Appeal accordingly ordered that the suit be remitted to the Chief Judge of the High Court of Lagos State, for reassignment to another Judge for accelerated hearing and determination.
Displeased with the judgement of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue for Determination
After evaluating the respective sole issue formulated by the respective parties which the court considered substantially similar in substance, the Supreme Court identified one issue for determination:
Whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction to have entertained the suit?
Arguments
Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Respondents’ claim arose from damage caused to their boat by the Appellant, and that the boat being that which was classified as a vessel under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, brought the suit within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Counsel relied on Section 251(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Sections 1(1)(a), 2(1) and (3), 19, and 25 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, as well as the cases of MOBIL PROD. (NIG.) UNLIMITED v ADENI (2010) 4 NWLR (PT. 1185) 586 and ONI v CADBURY NIG. PLC (2016) 9 NWLR (PT. 1516) 80.
The Appellant’s Counsel argued further that the claim which was hinged on damage done to a vessel during navigation on water, as stated on the writ of summons and statement of claim filed by the Respondents, was a maritime claim situated within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, and the Court of Appeal was wrong to have found otherwise. In support of this submission, Counsel relied on A.G. FEDERATION v A.G. LAGOS STATE (2013) LPELR-20974(SC).
On the other hand, Counsel for the 1st Respondent argued that the Respondents’ claim was that of conversion of a speed boat and the recovery of the value of the boat, rather than an admiralty matter. Referring to specific paragraphs of the Statement of Claim, Counsel submitted that the suit disclosed no facts relating to any admiralty matter and did not have any admiralty content that could justify the invocation of the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, as it did not involve the carriage of goods by sea, the hire of a vessel, maritime transactions, or any matter connected with the perils of the sea.
Counsel for the 1st Respondent further argued that, the mere mention of “a boat” as the subject-matter of the alleged conversion or appropriation did not transform the claim into an admiralty action. Relying on IROEGBU v MV CALABAR CARRIER (2008) 5 NWLR (PT. 1081) 147 and TSKJ (NIG.) LTD v OTOCHEM (NIG.) LTD. (2018) 11 NWLR (PT. 1630) 335, Counsel maintained that navigation at sea, carriage by sea, or other maritime elements must exist before admiralty jurisdiction can be invoked, and submitted that since these elements were absent, the matter fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Lagos State. Counsel urged the Apex Court to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent, essentially adopted the arguments of Counsel for the 1st Respondent.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
In resolving the sole issue for determination, the Supreme Court restated the principle of law that the determining factor for jurisdiction is the Claimant’s claim as disclosed in the statement of claim and the reliefs sought, referring to SCC (NIG.) LTD & ANOR v GEORGE & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62865 (SC) and EYO v FRSC UYO & ANOR (2019) LPELR-46999.
The Apex Court held that Sections 1 and 2 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act specifically enumerated the matters that fall within the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, and before a party can invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the subject-matter must fall within the claims listed under Sections 1 and 2 of the Admiralty Act.
The Court found that from an examination of the Respondents’ Statement of Claim, especially paragraphs 5, 6–12 in which the Respondents pleaded that (a) the said boat which belonged to the 1st Respondent was kept in the 2nd Respondent’s premises, (b) the 2nd Respondent let the said premises to the Appellant for a yearly tenancy which did not include the usage of the boat; it was clear that the Respondents’ claim was based on the alleged appropriation and conversion of the 1st Respondent’s boat, which they claimed was used and damaged by the Appellant’s staff. The Supreme Court held that from these facts and the reliefs sought by the Respondents as disclosed in the Statement of Claim, it was glaring that the dispute between the parties was a simple claim in tort for conversion and recovery of the value of the boat, and not an admiralty or maritime matter.
The Court held further that by virtue of Section 2(3)(f) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991, reference to a general maritime claim is a reference to a claim out of an agreement relating to the carriage of goods or persons by a ship or the use or hire of a ship, whether by charter-party or otherwise.
The Court held that there was nothing in the facts pleaded in the Respondents’ Statement of Claim that relates to a maritime claim, and the mere fact that the subject-matter was a boat which was allegedly damaged by the Appellant, does not ipso facto bring the matter within the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The Apex Court held further that there was also nothing in the claim, whereby the court may have been led to consider proprietary interest in or ownership of the boat. The Court also held that there was no transaction on the boat, and the only transaction between the parties was the tenancy agreement between the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent on the premises where the Respondents kept the boat; therefore, the nature of the Respondent’s claim brought it within the realm of the tort of conversion, well within the jurisdiction of the State High Court.
The Apex Court found that the fact that a boat was the subject of conversion did not automatically bring it under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991, and thus, not sufficient to confer on the Federal High Court exclusive jurisdiction, as the provisions of Section 251(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which confers admiralty jurisdiction on the Federal High Court clearly did not contemplate any matter which involves simple conversion of a boat that has no maritime nexus, like the Respondents’ action. The Supreme Court referred to its decision in TSKJ NIGERIA LIMITED v OTOCHEM NIGERIA LIMITED (Supra).
Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the Court of Appeal, that the High Court of Lagos State, by virtue of Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution, had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the matter, and the trial court was wrong to have held differently.
Appeal Dismissed; Case remitted to the Chief Judge of the High Court of Lagos State for re-assignment to another Judge for accelerated hearing.
Representation
Adetokunbo Davies with Abdulhamid Modibbo for the Appellant.
Chief C. I. Igbinedion with Belinda Frank for the 1st Respondent.
Okechukwu. Umemuo for the 2nd Respondent
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)
Culled From THISDAY
