This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, 7 October 1986. Goods shipped by SCAC Fultrans Afrique (SCAC), bound for Douala (Cameroon) and loaded in Rouen (France) on the ship X Arabella, belonging to Europa Afrika Linie (EAL), were stolen during an anchorage in the harbour of Lagos (Nigeria) where the ship was attacked and looted by a gang of criminals. SCAC and Rhin-et-Moselle, its insurer, sued EAL for payment of damages and in indemnity.

EAL criticised the judgment for having granted the application. EAL argued that the 'act of public enemies' in art 4.2.f of the Hague Rules must necessarily be understood as any looting of cargo by people in rebellion against international public order, acting by force. This was indeed the case here. The ship was the object, at sea, of a real act of piracy carried out by open force and having led to the looting of the cargo. Further, the fact that the carrier invoked looting of the cargo as the basis of the exception provided for in art 4.2.f of the Hague Rules did not preclude the possibility of also invoking the exception in art 4.2.q which covers '[a]ny other cause arising without the actual fault or privity of the carrier, or without the actual fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier'. Indeed, the looting of the cargo could meet either the conditions of art 4.2.f or art 4.2.q of the aforementioned Convention. By refusing EAL the right to invoke art 4.2.q for having previously invoked art 4.2.f, the judgment under appeal violated art 4 of the Convention.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The boarding and looting of a ship, even committed in a gang and with open force, does not constitute, in the absence of any other circumstance, an 'act of public enemies' within the meaning of art 4.2.f of the Hague Rules, since they were carried out in the territorial waters of a sovereign State and consequently came under the authority of that State. The judgment found that the ship was attacked and looted, in the harbour of Lagos, in the territorial waters of Nigeria, by a group of individuals using force. It follows that the fraudulent removal of the disputed goods was not the result of an 'act of public enemies' within the meaning of the aforementioned provision, so that the carrier is not exonerated from liability. Consequently, it is with good reason that the Court of Appeal considered that EAL, which maintained that the loss of the goods had been caused by an 'act of public enemies' could not take advantage, with regard to the same factual circumstances, of the absence of fault on the part of the carrier or its agents. In so ruling, the Court of Appeal did not violate the provisions of the Convention.