Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos on has ordered the refund of Shipping Line Agency Charges, SLAC, collected by shipping
companies operating in the country in the last 11 years, even as the court
asked the shipping companies to stop further collection of the levies forthwith
in the case between the ports economic regulator and the shipping service
providers.
 |
| Executive Secretary, Nigerian Shippers Council, NSC, Hassan Bello |
The Council had in 2014 reduced the amount
collected on SLAC, an order which the shipping companies refused to obey.
Operating under the Association of Shipping
Lines Agencies, ASLA, the shipping companies had as a result, gone to court to
stop the ports economic regulator, but lost the case in December 2014.
They then headed to the Appeal Court along with the Seaport Terminal Operators Association of Nigeria, STOAN, whose members were equally against the decision of the Council reversing storage charges collected by the terminal operators and the increase of the free storage period at the ports from three to seven days.
In the judgment read by Justice Adejumo, the Appeal Court ordered that the appellants should stop collecting SLAC.
They then headed to the Appeal Court along with the Seaport Terminal Operators Association of Nigeria, STOAN, whose members were equally against the decision of the Council reversing storage charges collected by the terminal operators and the increase of the free storage period at the ports from three to seven days.
In the judgment read by Justice Adejumo, the Appeal Court ordered that the appellants should stop collecting SLAC.
The Court further ordered that the appellants
should give account of what they collected from 11 years ago till date to the
Shippers’ Council. Apart from this, the appellants
are also to make the refund with 21 percent interest per annum since 2006.
The Court ordered that the parties involved in the collection of SLAC are to bear respective costs.
However, in the 100 page judgment, the Court held that the ports economic regulator cannot impose charges without negotiating with the service providers.
Following this, the Court voided the Notice that the Council had issued in 2014 on some of the charges.
The Court had given judgment on other three issues which were in favour of the appellants which details could not be ascertained as at the time of filing this report.
It was gathered that the lawyers in the case are seeking the release of the 100 page court judgment for proper interpretation and understanding.
Both service providers and the ports economic regulator have been in the Appeal Court for about two years and half after the judgment delivered by the Federal High Court in December 17, 2014 which was in favour of the Shippers’ Council.
Stakeholders had expressed dismay over the delay in the case, and had called for out of court settlement.
It was gathered that the two parties, NSC and the shipping service providers, were considering the out of court settlement option before the Appeal Court judgment.
The Court ordered that the parties involved in the collection of SLAC are to bear respective costs.
However, in the 100 page judgment, the Court held that the ports economic regulator cannot impose charges without negotiating with the service providers.
Following this, the Court voided the Notice that the Council had issued in 2014 on some of the charges.
The Court had given judgment on other three issues which were in favour of the appellants which details could not be ascertained as at the time of filing this report.
It was gathered that the lawyers in the case are seeking the release of the 100 page court judgment for proper interpretation and understanding.
Both service providers and the ports economic regulator have been in the Appeal Court for about two years and half after the judgment delivered by the Federal High Court in December 17, 2014 which was in favour of the Shippers’ Council.
Stakeholders had expressed dismay over the delay in the case, and had called for out of court settlement.
It was gathered that the two parties, NSC and the shipping service providers, were considering the out of court settlement option before the Appeal Court judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment