Re-evaluating the Admiralty Jurisdiction of Nigeria's Federal High Court in the Age of Combined Transport Shipping

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Festus O Ukwueze ◽  
Herbert A Umezuruike ◽  
Dike J Ibegbulem
Keyword(s):  
High Court ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
English Law ◽  
High Seas

Abstract This article critically examines the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court of Nigeria in relation to claims arising from combined transport shipping. It questions the rationale for the continued circumscription of the court's admiralty jurisdiction to activities on navigable waters based on English law pedigree. It argues that, in the present era of containerization and combined transport shipping, it has become imperative to unshackle Nigerian courts from English antecedents that limit the admiralty jurisdiction of the court to activities on the high seas. The article identifies extant national legislation, a continental instrument and recent judicial authorities that provide the basis for expanding the Federal High Court's admiralty jurisdiction to accommodate the adjudication of claims derived from combined transport shipping beyond the locale of the high seas.

scholarly journals Some Issues in Treating the Changes of Circumstances under English Law

Pro Futuro ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ágnes Juhász
Keyword(s):  
Legal Systems ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Essential Change ◽  
Contractual Relationships ◽  
English Law

All legal systems have their own solution for the treatment of the essential change of circumstance subsequent to the conclusion of the contract. Some of them allow for the judicial amendment of the contract, if the conditions of the clausula rebus sic stantibus are fulfilled.  There are other states, where the possibility to modify the contract by judicial act in case of an essential change of circumstances subsequent to the contract conclusion has only recently been recognised by the national legislation. In the following, it is to be reviewed how and by what means and models English law treats those changes of circumstances which occur after the conclusion of the contract and significantly reshape the contractual relationships.

Proprietary estoppel and wills

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-48
Author(s):  
Patrick Milne
Keyword(s):  
High Court ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Right

WHEN is a promise to benefit someone on one's death an enforceable promise? This was the question for the High Court in Gillett v. Holt and Another [1998] 3 All E.R. 917. As Carnwath J. recognised, the difficulty lies in reconciling proprietary estoppel with the principle that “[s]ubject to specific exceptions (such as for dependants), the right to decide, and change one's mind as to, the devolution of one's estate is a basic and well understood feature of English law”.

“Autonomic judicial review”: powers in search of identity and assertion

1999 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-111
Author(s):  
Bu-Buakei Jabbi
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Special Method ◽  
High Court ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Subject ◽  
English Law ◽  
As If

In English law, since 1977 at least, the term “application for judicial review” has come to refer to the special method of applying for public law remedies in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over inferior courts and administrative bodies or authorities. Moreover, die fine expositions flowing from that jurisdiction—comprising judicial decisions, dicta and learned writings alike—have tended to sound at points as if “judicial review” might be more or less coterminous with “supervisory review”. A useful introduction to the subject, ostensibly setting out “to examine the various different review jurisdictions vested in die English courts”, however, ends up acknowledging and treating only the appellate and supervisory jurisdictions.

scholarly journals ACTS OF TORTURE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY IN THE COLONY OF CYPRUS IN THE 1950S AND CHOICE OF LAW

2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 1005-1020
Author(s):  
Uglješa Grušić
Keyword(s):  
Government Policy ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Security Services ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
British Military ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The 1950S

AbstractThis article notes the judgment in Sophocleous v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in which the High Court dealt with the law applicable to civil claims arising out of alleged acts of torture committed by British military and security services in the colony of Cyprus in the 1950s. The judgment is important because it sheds light on some underexplored corners of choice of law (law governing the external aspects of vicarious liability and of accessory liability in tort) and reaches the conclusion, which runs against the grain of other recent judgments given in civil claims brought against the Crown for the external exercise of governmental authority, that English law governs.

Muslim Marriages in English Law

1972 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Pearl
Keyword(s):  
High Court ◽  
New Family ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Muslim Immigrants ◽  
Family Division ◽  
The Subject ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law

The purpose of this article is to review some of the numerous problems facing the new Family Division of the High Court which arise out of the reception of large numbers of Muslim immigrants into this country. The appearance of the Law Commission's Report on Polygamous Marriages and the debate in the House of Lords on Lord Simon's proposed amendment to the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Act highlight the importance of the subject for the profession.

Crimes by British Passengers on board Foreign Ships on the High Seas: The Historical Background to Section 686(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-196
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Marston
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
English Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
Merchant Shipping ◽  
English Law ◽  
High Seas

INR. v. Kelly [1982] AC 665 the House of Lords held that by virtue of s. 686(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 a British subject may be tried in any English court within whose jurisdiction he or she is found for any crime under English law alleged to have been committed on the high seas on board a foreign ship to which he or she does not belong. After analysing the statutory predecessors of s. 686(1) in the light of archival documents previously unexamined, the article concludes that their Lordships' finding that it not only provided a venue but also extended the ambit of the criminal law is an example of creative interpretation.

Law Reporting in the Sudan

1959 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 176-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. L. Twining
Keyword(s):  
Leaf Form ◽  
High Court ◽  
Good Conscience ◽  
English Law ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Civil Courts ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Selection Of

The first volume of the Sudan Law Journal and Reports has at last appeared. Its publication marks the culmination of over thirty years of spasmodic agitation for an adequate system of law reporting of cases decided in the Civil Courts2 of a country which has been receiving English law under the guise of “justice, equity and good conscience” since 1900.3 In 1926 a Digest of the Decisions of the Court of Appeal of the Sudan was published, containing notes on a selection of some eighty cases decided between 1915 and 1926. It was intended that the Digest should be brought up to date annually, but in fact this was not done, and the next period covered is from January 1st, 1953, to June 30th, 1954, in a Digest of Cases in the Court of Appeal and High Court, prepared by Mr. Justice Stanley-Baker. In 1954 the first eleven judgments of the Sudan Court of Criminal Appeal, set up in 1949, were reported and published in loose-leaf form, the intention being to report and print each decision immediately after its delivery. This was done with two cases.

Was Charles I a Tyrant?

1956 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. W. K. Hinton
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
High Court ◽  
Charles I ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
English Law ◽  
Law Courts

Charles I was charged in the indictment before the High Court of Justice, at the trial before his execution, with entertaining “a wicked design to erect and uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will.” To this end he had “traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present parliament.” It is usual to scoff at this. How could a king commit treason? Indeed he could not. Yet if he had set out to make himself a tyrant this was a grave offense which, though unknown to English law courts, had often been accounted in political theory as deserving death. The issue of treason is therefore without importance: however bad in law, there was certainly no lesser charge on which to bring a king to execution. The important question concerns tyranny.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document