By Onozure Dania

The Court of Appeal  sitting in Lagos, has held that Air France was liable for breach of contract between it and one of its passengers, Mr Chidi Adebanya for compelling him to pay  additional money in respect of purported excess luggage.

Judicial symbol for justice

The Court of Appeal  awarded the sum of €1381 and cost of N300,000 against Air France in favour of Chidi Adabanya, holding that he (applicant) was further sub-charged in breach of  contract he entered with the airline in respect of his baggage.

The lead judgment by Justice Yargata Nimpar, said: “It is uncontested that there was a contract of carriage by air between the parties, the contract is reflected in Exhibit PL1A- the appellant’s ticket and respondent’s Brochure tendered as Exhibit D2. It is trite that both parties and the court are bound by the terms of contract which is commonly known and referred to as sanity contract. The appellant bought four tickets for himself, his wife and two daughters for Lagos- Paris- London-Paris-Lagos against May 17, 2003 and return on May 30, 2003.

“The first leg of the journey was executed. On the second and return leg, the appellant broke his journey and had five days to stay in Paris before his return on May 30, 2003 while his wife returned separately. The appellant’s case due to him as per his ticket and had to pay additional sum (€1381) to cover the excess as computed by the checking staff of the respondent at the Charles De Gaulle Airport Paris.

“He was only allowed one piece of 23 kilograms. His wife with the same ticket enjoyed the luggage allowance fully and the excuse given by the respondent was that the appellant broke his journey by spending five days in Paris before returning to Lagos and that there is a separate luggage policy when that happens.

“The court below certainly ignored unchallenged evidence and principles of a written contract and the fact that oral evidence cannot vary a written contract to arrive at the decision.

It is clear that the court disregarded clear evidence to arrive at the judgment and that is perverse. Taking the totality of the evidence before the trial court, the appellant established a case of breach of contract because the explanation offered by the respondent cannot be read into a written contract  between the parties, therefore, there was a breach of contract by the respondent and I find for the appellant under issue one.

A KLM 747 aircraft: staff and management locked in pay dispute since February

“The failure to grant the reliefs of the appellant was based on the perverse decision reached by the trial court. The appellant again proved the sum paid for the excess luggage and tendered the receipt for the sum of €1381. There is no question about this amount, the appellant is entitled to be refunded the said sum.

“Consequently, I find for the appellant in terms of the claim for the refund of the sum of €1381 being the amount wrongly extracted from him in breach of the contract of carriage by air between him and the respondent. I award 10 per cent interest on the said sum from the date of judgment until it is fully refunded to the appellant.

The appeal is meritorious and it succeeds. The judgment of the trial court is hereby set aside and in its place, I find for the appellant and judgement is entered in favour of the appellant as above. Cost of N300, 000 in favour of the appellant against the respondent.