By Godwin Oritse

There are indications that the continued collection of unapproved port charges has pitched the Nigerian Shippers’ Council against terminal operators despite a court order on the latter to discontinue such practice.

ship

Already, the Nigerian Shippers’ Council has filed an application before Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi Lagos, asking the court to compel terminal operators to comply with its earlier ruling in December 2014 that the concessionaires should stop collection of all illegal charges from port users.

The Council through its lawyers asked the judge to compel the terminal operators to obey the directive pending the determination of the application for stay of execution earlier filed by the terminal operators.

The Council also requested the court to direct the terminal operators to refund the sum of N150billion that has been collected illegally since December last year in disobedience to the court ruling.

In a statement by the Counsel to the Council, Messrs Olisa Agbakoba law chamber, and Babatunde  Ogungbamila, the Council expressed dismay at a Newspaper publication by Messrs  Femi Atoyebi (SAN) and Ayo Olurunfemi advising the general public that they are bound to follow the judgement of Justice Buba of the Federal High court.

“In any event, we have now filed an application before Mr. I. N Buba to compel the terminal operators to comply with the judgement pending the determination of the application for stay of execution and to immediately refund the sun of N150billion illegally collected in disobedience to the judgement.

“Messrs Femi Atoyebi and Ayo Olurunfemi claimed that the terminal operators have the license to continue the collection of illegal charges because there is a pending application for stay of execution of the judgement and an appeal.

“In essence, messrs Femi Atoyebi (SAN) and Ayo Olurunfemi are saying that the pending application stays execution and appeal have arrested the effect of the judgment.

“We disagree with this position. The mere fact that there is a pending application for stay of execution and an appeal does not remove the effect of the judgement”.

Citing precedence, Agbakoba said “Our position is supported by supreme Court decision in Okafor versus Nnaife (1987) 4 (NWLR) (p.64) 126 at 138 where the court held that “it will be unfair to allow a losing defendant to continue cutting down and selling economic trees on the land” adjudged by the trial court not belong to them simply because of a pending application for stay of execution or an appeal.

In his concurring judgment, Aniogolu JSC refused the application for stay in the following words “What the appellants who has been found not to be the owners of the land in dispute want of this court, in effect, is for the court to lend its authority to Appellants, for them to continue to devastate the land in dispute by being allowed to continue to cut down and sell the economic trees on the land, while the owners of the land (Respondents’) sit back and watch helplessly the fruit of his judgment being denied and deprived him. That will be justice inverted; I will not be a party to such an inversion”.

Buttressing his position against the terminal operators, Agbakoba said “This Supreme court judgment is apt to our case.

“Appealing the decision, it is clear the terminal operators cannot continue to impose and collect illegal port charges on the pretext that they have filed a pending application for stay of execution or appeal” the statement stated.