MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On Purpose of Montreal Convention, 1999
The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air,1999 (the Montreal Convention) establishes a comprehensive framework governing the rights and liabilities of carriers, passengers, and third parties. The Convention was adopted to modernize and harmonise the liability regime governing international air carriage. One of its primary goals is to establish a uniform legal framework that balances the interests of passengers and carriers, while also seeking to ensure predictability and consistency in liability claims and providing affair and efficient compensation mechanism for passengers and their dependents. (P. 411, paras.F-H)
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On Status and application of Montreal Convention,1999 in Nigeria
The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, 1999, was domesticated in Nigeria vide section 48 of the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority Act, 2006. By virtue of section 48(2) of the Act, it applies to both international and domestic air carriage. Given the comprehensive nature of the liability regime established by the Convention as domesticated in Nigeria, it operates as the exclusive framework for addressing claims arising from carriage by air. Accordingly, claims for damages in Nigeria arising from the death of a passenger in carriage by air must be brought solely under the Montreal Convention as domesticated, subject to its conditions and limits. A passenger is not at liberty to choose between the provisions of the Convention and the domestic/common law for claims for damages against the carrier. Such claims have to be asserted only in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of the Convention and cannot be pursued under any other law. [Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1238) 512; Haka Air Services (Nig.) Ltd. v. Keazor (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1264) 320 referred to.] (P. 413, para. A; paras. C-D;432, paras. A-C)
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On whether the Montreal Convention, 1999, applies exclusively to claims arising from carriage by air
Article 29 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air,1999 provides that in the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo, any action for damages, however founded, whether under the Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise, can only be brought subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in the Convention, without prejudice to the question as to who are the persons who have the right to bring the suit and what are their respective rights. In any such action, punitive, exemplary or any other non-compensatory damages shall not be recoverable. The wording of the initial part of the article is clear and unambiguous. It establishes that claims for damages arising from international air carriage must be governed exclusively by the terms of the Convention. The key phrase, “any action for damages, however founded”, unequivocally underscores the Convention’s exclusivity in regulating claims arising from international air carriage, including those relating to passenger death or injury. By the article, the Convention does not merely create a framework for liability, it precludes reliance on other legal bases, whether contractual, tortuous statutory, except as specifically provided within the Convention itself. In essence, all potential legal bases for claims, including those under contract, tort or domestic statutes, have been accommodated under the Convention. This expansive language leaves no room for concurrent or alternative claims outside the framework of the Convention. (P. 412, paras. A-F) Per ABUBAKAR, J.S.C. at page 412, paras. F-H:“This interpretation finds judicial support in Sidhu v. British Airways Plc (1997) 1 ALLER 193, where the House of Lords held that the Warsaw Convention (the predecessor to the Montreal Convention) provided the sole remedy for passengers in claims arising from international carriage by air. Similarly, in ELAL Israel Airlines Ltd v. Tsui Yuan Tseng 525U.S. 155 (1999), the United States Supreme Court affirmed that the Convention’s liability regime pre-empted all claims within its scope, emphasizing its goal of uniformity and predictability in aviation-related disputes. The Convention’s structure reflects a deliberate effort to avoid fragmentation of liability regimes across jurisdictions. Allowing claims under domestic laws in addition to the Convention would undermine this objective, introducing variability and unpredictability into a system designed to be consistent and globally applicable.”
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On Status of the convention, where domesticated in Nigeria
Domesticated conventions have the force of law in Nigeria and enjoy the same status as local statutes. Domesticated treaties are enforceable as part of Nigerian law but do not automatically override other domestic laws unless expressly stated. However, where the domesticated treaty comprehensively governs a specific subject matter, it is treated as the primary legal framework. [Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228 referred to.] (P. 413,paras. A-B)
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On Effect of the Interpretation of the Montreal Convention,1999
The interpretation of the relevant articles of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, 1999, ensures a balance between the uniformity and predictability intended by the Convention and the procedural and distributive mechanisms provided under domestic laws. The balance promotes both the objectives of the Convention and the equitable treatment of claimants, reinforcing the comprehensive and harmonious approach envisioned by the legal framework. (P. 415, paras. A-C)
MR. FEMI ANIBABA V. DANA AIRLINES LIMITED & ANOR (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994).
On Whether the Montreal Convention, 1999, recognizes of domestic laws in determining eligible claimants and their respective rights
From the provision of Article 29 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, 1999, the Convention recognizes the role of domestic laws in determining eligible claimants. By the latter part of the article, provision is made for an important qualification to the Convention’s exclusivity. It states “… without prejudice to the question as to who are the persons who have the right to bring the suit and what are their respective rights …” With the provision, the Convention explicitly preserves the role of domestic laws in determining the persons entitled to bring claims and their respective rights. While the substantive liability framework is governed exclusively · by the Convention, the procedural and distributive aspects of claims are left to domestic legal systems. Therefore, in this context, the Fatal Accidents Law and the Administration of Estates Law play a crucial role in the Nigerian legal system. The Fatal Accidents Law identifies dependents of the deceased and outlines their entitlement to compensation while the Administration of Estates Law governs the rights of estate representatives and the hierarchy of beneficiaries. The laws do not create conflict with the articles of the Convention but rather complement it by addressing issues that the Convention deliberately leaves open. (P. 413,paras. D-H)Per ABUBAKAR, J.S.C. at page 414, paras. A-G:“The application of domestic laws in this manner is consistent with the judicial precedents in other jurisdictions, which I find helpful and persuasive. In Zicherman v. Korean Airlines Co. 516 U.S. 217 (1996), the United States Supreme Court held that domestic laws govern the determination of eligible claimants and the distribution of compensation in fatal aviation accident cases, as these matters fall outside the scope of the Convention. Similarly, in Sidhu (supra) and El Al Israel (supra), the court’s emphasis on exclusivity was limited to the substantive liability framework, without precluding the application of domestic laws on procedural issues. In this regard, therefore, the complementary role of domestic laws ensures that claimants have a clear legal pathway for the distribution of compensation, particularly in cases involving multiple dependents or complex family arrangements. Without such domestic provisions, disputes over the rightful beneficiaries of compensation could arise, leading to delays, potential injustice, and protracted family skirmishes. Thus, while the Convention serves as the exclusive framework for establishing liability, domestic laws like the Fatal Accidents Laws and the Administration of Estates Law act as a necessary adjunct in determining the procedural and distributive aspects of claims.It thus becomes clear that the Montreal Convention, as domesticated in Nigeria, provides the exclusive framework for claims arising from international carriage by air. Claims for damages must be brought solely under the Convention, subject to its conditions and limits. However, the determination of eligible claimants and the distribution of compensation are matters reserved for domestic laws, such as the Fatal Accidents Law and the Administration of Estates Law. While the tragic loss of life is deeply regrettable, the legal framework for addressing such claims is firmly established under the Montreal Convention, as domesticated. The Fatal Accidents Law and the Administration of Estates Law are relevant and applicable in determining the persons entitled to bring claims and their respective rights, without more.”