On 22 July 2009, Minaj Holdings (Minaj), a Nigerian corporation, purchased 420,000 (+/- 5%) of ordinary bags of Portland cement valued at USD 39,900,000 from Rizhao Qihan International Trading Co Ltd (RQ), a Chinese corporation. On 8 December 2009, the defendant, International Maritime Trading Co Ltd, (IMT), as owner of the m/v Kuk II, and RQ, as shipper, entered into a charterparty on GENCON 94 terms. For arbitration unrelated to general average, GENCON 94 provides that any dispute arising out of the charterparty should be referred to arbitration in London in accordance with the UK Arbitration Acts 1950 and 1979 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force. IMT issued three original and three copies of a bill of lading dated 19 December 2009 to RQ for the carriage of 27,500 mts of ordinary Portland cement valued at USD 2,612,500 on the m/v Kuk Il from Rizhao Port, China, to Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The bill of lading was signed by the General Manager of Sino-Ocean Shipping Agency Rizhao as agent for and on behalf of the master of the m/v Kuk Il. Pursuant to the bill of lading, the cargo was loaded onto the m/v Kuk Il, which set sail from Rizhao Port, China, on 19 December 19 2009, for discharge at Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The bill of lading incorporated all the terms and conditions 'including the Law and Arbitration clause' of the charterparty.

The m/v Kuk Il dropped anchor near Port Harcourt, Nigeria, on 25 January 2010, but was denied permission by the Federal Ministry of Finance of Nigeria and the Nigeria Customs Services to berth and discharge the cargo at Port Harcourt because Minaj's approval to import cement had expired on 31 December 2008. Due to the m/v Kuk II being prevented from entering Port Harcourt, RQ instructed IMT to proceed to the Port of Douala, Cameroon, to discharge the Cargo to a new consignee, Societe Quifeurou Cameroun (SQC). On or about 8 February 2010, RQ returned the bill of lading to IMT for cancellation, and IMT issued a 'surrendered' clean bill of lading to RQ with SQC named as the new consignee, but only after both RQ and SQC issued letters of indemnity in favor of IMT.

The m/v Kuk Il set sail on 12 February 2010, and commenced discharging the cargo at the Port of Douala, Cameroon, on 13 February 2010. After a number of delays caused by rain, the m/v Kuk II completed discharging the cargo on 5 March 2010. None of the parties has any knowledge of what happened to the cargo after its discharge at the Port of Douala, Cameroon. Minaj claims it did not receive the cargo. Nonetheless, on 7 April 2010, Minaj instructed Union Bank of Nigeria plc (UB) to pay RQ USD 2,612,500 for the 'missing consignment'.

On 18 February 2011, Minaj filed a complaint against IMT seeking to recover the USD 2,612,500 paid to RQ. 

Held: Complaint dismissed.

Apart from the Court's concerns about whether Minaj's complaint stated a valid cause of action against IMT, the claim was time-barred. Section 404(6) of the Carriage by Sea Act, which is based on art 3.6 of the Hague Rules, provides for a one-year statute of limitations. In the present case, assuming that Minaj had a cause of action against IMT, it must have arisen on a date between 25 January 2010, and 13 February 2010. Minaj's claim filed on 18 February 2011, was therefore filed beyond the applicable one-year period of limitation. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitation of the Carriage by Sea Act. Even if the Carriage by Sea Act was not applicable in the present case, the conditions of carriage on the overleaf of the bill of lading are to the same effect. Additionally, China, which is the country of shipment in this matter, devised its own rules using some features of the Hague Rules and Hague-Visby Rules in the Maritime Code of the People's Republic of China 1993 (Maritime Code). Article 257 of the Maritime Code provides that: 'The Limitation period for claims against the carrier with regard to the carriage of goods by sea is one year, counting from the day on which the goods were delivered or should have been delivered by the carrier'.

With regard to any claim for purported non-delivery of cargo, both the Hague Rules and the Hague-Visby Rules provide in art 4.2.g that the carrier should not be liable for loss or damage to goods (and non-delivery thereof) that may arise or result from 'arrest or restraint of princes, rulers or people, or seizure under legal process'. This covers the situation when delivery of the cargo by the carrier is prevented by state or official authority. In the present case, IMT's vessel, m/v Kuk Il, was prohibited by the authorities from berthing and discharging at Port Harcourt, Nigeria due entirely to the fault of Minaj which failed to renew its approval to import cement with the government of Nigeria.