Introduction

Admiralty law, also known as maritime law, is considered sui generis, meaning it is a distinct legal system that is separate from other branches of law. It operates within a unique statutory and procedural framework and as a specialised regime, it commands independence from general civil procedural statutes [1].

Admiralty law also combines elements of contract law, tort law, and property law, but also includes unique concepts and doctrines that are specific to maritime activities alone. For instance, admiralty law governs disputes related to ship ownership, cargo claims, marine insurance, salvage, and the liability of ship owners for damage caused during navigation [2].

In this article, attention is drawn to the reaffirmation by the Supreme Court of Nigeria that admiralty matters are procedurally autonomous, and not subject to the general civil process or rules under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act [3]. By examining the recent decision of the Apex Court in Geepee Industries Nigeria Ltd & Anor v. MV Kota Manis & Ors (2025) [4], the article interrogates the implications of this judicial stance on inter-state service of admiralty processes and the broader question of admiralty autonomy within Nigeria’s federal legal system. This decision presents a timely opportunity to clarify the limits of statutory overlap and reinforces the sui generis nature of maritime litigation in the country.

Why are Admiralty Matters Sui Generis?

There is no doubt to the above assertion that admiralty matters are considered sui generis, just as election matters in Nigeria. The sui generis natureof admiralty matter was clearly captured by learned silk, L. Chidi Ilogu (SAN) in his article, “Interrogating Admiralty Practice in Nigeria,” thus:

“The concept is often said to be “sui generis” because it is a distinct class with features that are not common to other transactional matters. Prominent among these features are the concept of “action in rem” and “action in personam”, legal personality of ships and arrest of ships. It is in recognition of this distinctive nature of Admiralty that most nations have accorded it a separate jurisdiction for the adjudication of cases arising and/or pertaining to such transactions. In Nigeria, the concept has been acknowledged in Section 251 (1)(g) of the amended 1999 Nigerian Constitution and in the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991.” [5]

However, there are many challenges facing admiralty practice in Nigeria, particularly around jurisdictional clarity, procedural delays, and the need for legal reform, which inadvertently is returning admiralty jurisdiction to the
state of flux reminiscent of jurisdictional wars between Federal High Court and State High Courts vis-à-vis the applicability of laws relating to general civil matters and admiralty matters [6].

To achieve the objective of the constant advocacy of many legal minds on the needs for harmonization of Nigeria’s admiralty laws with international maritime standards and improved court procedures to enhance investor(s) confidence and maritime commerce, the Supreme Court, in Geepee’s case, recently provided renewed clarity on the distinctive procedural framework governing admiralty matters in Nigeria.

Brief Fact of the Case

Geepee Industries Nigeria Limited and Staco Industries Nigeria Limited, as plaintiffs (appellants at the Supreme Court), instituted an admiralty action at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division (“FHC”) by a writ of summons dated 3^rd April 2013 against the vessel MV “Kota Manis” and four other parties (owners and parties connected to the MV “Kota Manis”). They sought to recover losses amounting to over N94 million in special damages, N100 million as general damages, and ₦10 million in legal costs; arising from a fire incident onboard the vessel MV “Kota Manis” at the Lagos Port. The losses included the destruction of 800 drums of DOP and ancillary costs such as insurance, shipping, terminal charges, and loss of revenue.

The defendants (respondents at the Supreme Court) challenged the jurisdiction of the FHC, praying that the suit be struck out. The trial court struck out the motion and ordered the respondents to file their defence. Dissatisfied, the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by striking out the writ of summons of the appellants for failure to comply with the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (“SCPA”) in serving a defendant resident outside Nigeria (“3^rd respondent”).

The appellants, aggrieved by this decision, approached the Supreme Court to primarily determine:

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Writ of Summons was issued and served in accordance with the applicable law.

The appellants contended that no leave is required for issuance and service of a Writ in admiralty action in rem. The Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules (“AJPR”) [7] provides a sufficient regime for service of court processes in admiralty matters, and thus the SCPA was inapplicable. The respondents on the other hands canvassed that the SCPA and the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules (“FHC Rules”) [8] is applicable and mandatory when issuing/serving the writ of summons for service outside jurisdiction [9]. 

Supreme Court’s Resolution on the Sole Issue Raised

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Apex Court held that the Court below erred by applying the SCPA and the FHC Rules to a case that was, without dispute, an admiralty action.

The Court emphatically held that once a matter falls under admiralty jurisdiction, the applicable laws are the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (“AJA”) [10] and the AJPR. Hence, where there is a general legislation and a specific legislation on the same subject matter, the specific legislation prevails, in this case, AJA and AJPR [11].

Per Stephen Jonah Adah, J.S.C, delivering the lead judgment, put it succinctly at pages 17-19 thus:

“In addition to the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (AJA), there is also Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules 2011. These are specialized and peculiar legislations dealing with Admiralty. To my own understanding, the Legislature enacted these custom made laws and rules for the purpose of regulating Admiralty causes and matters and there is no specific reference to the application of other Rules of Court to Admiralty matters. The Courts went into errors in the past by allowing the Federal High Court Rules and Sherriff and Civil Processes Act to apply to Admiralty matters. The lower Court equally went into the error of applying Order 12 Rule 8; Order 3 Rules 19 and 20 of the Federal High Court dealing with issuance of originating process whereas Order 3 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules 2011 deals with the form and commencement of actions. Order 3 Rule 1 prescribes that an Admiralty Action shall be commenced by (a) Writ of Summons, or (b) Originating Summons. Order 3 of the Rules is elaborate about how Originating Processes are issued and served…These provisions are to my mind clear and elaborate, and I believe, it is the intendment of the law for the AJA and AJPR 2011 to govern Admiralty causes and not the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules. With the provision of Order 3 of Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules (AJPR) 2011, the lower Court had no business referring to and applying the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 97 and 98 of the Sherriff and Civil Processes Act to determine the objections raised in this admiralty action.”

As seen from the above decision, the Supreme Court rejected the position of the Court of Appeal that the SCPA applied, describing it as a fundamental misdirection and a miscarriage of justice, as the AJA and AJPR override the general rules of civil procedure, including the SCPA and the FHC Rules.

Consequently, the Court ruled that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction and that the service of the writ was valid. The matter was remitted for hearing on the merits, and the respondents were ordered to pay costs of N20 million to the appellants.

A Judicial Warning Against Procedural Abuse and Delay

The Supreme Court in the extant case also pronounced on a salient issue always faced by trial court especially on challenge to its jurisdiction at the onset of a case before it. The Apex Court sounded a significant warning to lower courts on the abuse of such jurisdictional objections and the need to avoid delaying substantive justice.

Per Emmanuel Agim, JSC, lending his voice to the lead judgment of his learned brother, issued a grave warning against the increasing misuse of jurisdictional objections to delay or defeat the hearing of substantive matters thus:

“Let me again emphasise the need for trial Courts to heed the many decisions of this Court, that preliminary issues, including issues of lack of jurisdiction of the Court, be heard along with the merit of the dispute in the case and determined in the final judgment of the case to stop the now widespread practice of frustrating or preventing the hearing and determination of the merit of the dispute the parties brought for the Court’s resolution within a reasonable time by the ill-motivated, abusive and unethical use of the principle that issues of jurisdiction once raised at any stage of the proceedings must first be determined before taking any further step in the proceedings. The experience is that the appeal and further appeal that usually arise from such determination take years, in most cases running into decades, to determine, with the merit of the dispute that caused the action remaining frozen for years and/or nugated.” [12]

This stern judicial policy statement not only condemns procedural delay but signals a clear direction for courts to prioritize substantive justice over procedural tactics. This was also the concluding position of learned silk in his article, that: it is worth re-iterating that the legal maxim “delay defeats equity” is most apposite in Admiralty matters where time is of the essence and involves vessels which travel from one jurisdiction to another in the course of international trade and expensive carriage of goods. The need for admiralty claims to be expeditiously treated cannot be over-emphasised [13].

Key Takeaways

Looking at the decision of the Supreme Court in the Geepee’s case, the following are key takeaways:

1. Admiralty Law is Procedurally Autonomous: The decision reiterates the special status of admiralty law in Nigeria, affirming that it is governed by its own set of rules distinct from the general civil process or rules such as the SCPA.
2. Nationwide Service is Permissible in Admiralty Cases: The AJPR expressly allows service of originating processes outside jurisdiction without requiring compliance with the SCPA. Maritime lawyers must therefore take hint that the AJA, AJPR or laws relating solely to maritime matters are applicable when prosecuting maritime claims.
3. Harmonization with International Best Practices:By recognising the distinct procedural nature of maritime disputes, the judgment aligns Nigerian admiralty law with global legal standards.
4. Strengthened Judicial Efficiency and Access to Justice: The decision also admonish against allowing jurisdictional issues to derail the timely and fair hearing of disputes on merit. Therefore, it is apposite that trial courts should be weary of determining jurisdictional objections in isolation and encourages timely adjudication of substantive claims.

Conclusion

The Geepee decision marks a vital intervention in promoting substantive justice and curbing procedural abuse. It also fosters confidence in the Nigerian judicial system and strengthens the integrity of maritime adjudication as the decision is more than a procedural clarification; it is a jurisprudential milestone. It reaffirms the sui generis nature of admiralty law in Nigeria, underscores the supremacy of the AJA and AJPR over general procedural rules, and rebukes the weaponization of jurisdictional objections to stall justice.

The law and practice of admiralty and their related jurisprudence are international in nature and that Nigerian Courts should endeavour to align with such international best practices thereby preserving the age-long uniformity in admiralty matters within the Comity of Nations [14].

Finally, as commercial activities increasingly rely on maritime infrastructure, the need for certainty, efficiency, and fairness in admiralty litigation becomes even more critical. This judgment of the Court delivers on all fronts, offering both legal clarity and a timely reminder of the courts’ responsibility to uphold justice above technicalities. It will shape the approach of lower courts, maritime lawyers, and judges in subsequent admiralty proceedings and beyond.

Endnotes

1. Admiralty Law: Evolution, Nature, Scope and Sources. https://lawbhoomi.com/admiralty-law-evolution-nature-scope-and-sources/#:~:text=of%20Admiralty%20Law-,Sui%20Generis%20Legal%20System,are%20specific%20to%20maritime%20activities (accessed 30 May 2025).
2. Ibid.
3. Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap S6, LFN 2004.
4. (2025) LPELR-81075(SC).
5. Interrogating Admiralty Practice in Nigeria by L. Chidi Ilogu (SAN) FCIArb.

https://foundationchambers.com/interrogating-admiralty-practice-in-nigeria/ (accessed 30 May 2025).

• Ibid.
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules, 2011 (now 2023).
• Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009 (now 2019).
• See also the case of Owners of the MV “Arabella” v. NAIC (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1097) 182.
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1991, Cap A5, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
• See Madumere v. Okwara (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 303 at 317 paras. F.
• See pages 32-33 of the judgment.
• Supra (n. 5).
• Ibid.