Justice Musa Kakaki has fixed April 1, for the hearing of the suit filed by a Nigeria engineer, Alhaji Yekeen Idowu against KLM Royal Dutch, over alleged negligence.
Justice Kakaki fixed the date on Monday, when parties and their lawyersc appeared before the court.
The plaintiff, had dragged the Dutch airline before the court in a suit marked FHC/L/CS/607/2020.
At the resumed hearing of the suit on Thursday, Barrister Enitan Afolabi the announced his appearance for the plaintiff, while Barrister Fidelis OKeke leading Cynthia Adepoju announced their appearance for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines.
Also, Kitoye Pamela akinwale announced her appearance for the defendant.
KLM’s counsel told the court that the business of the day was for hearing of defendant’s defence to the suit.
However, counsel to the Plaintiff while apologized to court for missing the proceedings on two occasions, vehemently objected to the Counsel’s argument stating that the matter ought to start denove since it was partheard by Justice Abimbola Awogboro, who has been transferred to another jurisdiction of the court.
The plaintiff’s lawyer therefore asked the court for a new date for the commencement of the matter.
Justice Kakaki after listening to the parties’ submissions, held that the matter must commence denovo, he thereafter adjourned that matter to April 1, for hearing.
The plaintiff, Engineer Idowu, in his amended statement of claims filed by his lawyer, Enitan Afolabi, has asked the court for the sum of 700 Euro, N1.2 million and N45, million Naira only) from the airline, being general and special damages.
In urging the court to grant his request, the Engineer stated that on or about July 3, 2018, he embarked on a trip to Frankfurt, Germany on board of Klm Royal Dutch Airlines for valuable consideration and was scheduled to return to Lagos, Nigeria from Stuttgart, Germany on July 14, 2018 via a Reservation Code, MOHSKI and Airline Reservation Code V4P8K4(KL) stating his itinerary.
He further avers that contrary to the agreed route from Stuttgart, Germany to Amsterdam, Netherlands to Lagos, Nigeria, the airline rerouted his flight from Stuttgart, Germany to Paris, France to Casablanca, Morocco to Lagos Nigeria. And that the flight from Stuttgart, Germany to Paris, France was delayed from 7. 00am to 3.00pm for which the airline paid compensation of 600 Euro to him.
He stated that he was belatedly put on Air France flight with promise to drop him in Lagos, Nigeria en-route Casablanca, Morocco. However, he was punishingly flown from Paris, France to Casablanca, Morocco and dropped there where he was left stranded and dangerously to his fate for over 24 hours, which when added to the delay the re-route occasioned on the Plaintiff comes to 48 hours. The 48 hours certainly looked like a couple of weeks. And that he was left to frustration, isolation and deep depression during this period.
He stated that during this period, he could not access his family in Nigeria, his business associates, he could not meet his business appointments with some of the aforementioned companies and left incommunicado with the outside world. And that having been abandoned in Casablanca, Morocco by the defendant he unsuccessfully tried to contact the defendant and/or Air France office at the airport but was prevented from accessing the office at a point where he was required to have a valid transit visa in order to do so.
He stated further that the airline willingly refused, willingly failed to come to the terrible position he had put him. He was harassed by Morocco’s immigration authorities and barely escaped prosecution and imprisonment. All his efforts to find a solution to his travails met with a stone wall and was left dejected, miserable and at the mercy of the unknown.
The engineer further states the following: “that after frantically seeking for solution to his travails and could not get one as the Defendant made himself unavoidably irresponsible he was compelled to take his destiny in his hands as he struggled to book another flight vide Air Morocco to Lagos, Nigeria which cost him 700EU (Seven Hundred Euro). Once inside the aircraft flying him to Nigeria he observed co-passengers avoiding me like plague and some of them covering their noses.
“That on getting to Lagos, Nigeria he wrote to the Defendant vide the Defendant’s online platform on 27th July, 2018, 5th August, 2018, 13th August, 2018 and 20th August, 2018 complaining of the willful misconduct of the Defendant and although the Defendant responded to the plaintiff’s protest on the online platform by his emaii namely: Claim No 12000078001KL1870/14 Jul 2018, Claim No 12047594 001KL1870/14 Jul 2018, Claim No 1208922 6001AF1496/14 Jul 2018 and Claim No 12126736001AF 1496/14 July 2018, he refused, failed and/or neglected to address his grievances and further refused, failed and/or neglected to proffer solution and/or adequate compensation. The compensation offered by the defendant fell far short of the losses he incurred in consequence of the willful misconduct of the defendant.
“Upon consequence of the willful misconduct of the Defendant and his lackadaisical attitude to his travails, he had no alternative than to consult and retain the services of Afolasade Afolabi, Esq of Enitan Afolabi & Co who wrote the Defendant vide letters dated 21st May, 2019 and 24th June, 2019 and the defendant although replied the aforementioned letters persisted in his willful misconduct to meet the demand of the Plaintiff. The email under which the Defendant reacted to the Plaintiff solicitor’s letter is the email with reference no 13261498001KL1870/14 Jul 2018 and is hereby pleaded.
“The Plaintiff suffered special and general damages in consequence of Defendant’s breach of contract and willful misconduct. And that by the time he consulted his solicitors and an action was imminent he was unable to find the flight ticket he used from Casablanca to Lagos, Nigeria and all efforts to find it proved futile but continues to search for It until recently when he gave up the search for it as it was irretrievably lost.
“By reason of the Defendant’s Incompetence, deliberate act, act of negligence and willful misconduct the Plaintiff has been put to a lot of financial losses, travel stresses, loss of professional time, criminal imputation etc. and his health has been seriously and adversely affected.”
But the airline, KLM Royal Dutch, in it’s amended statement of defence filed by it’s lawyer, S. E. Elema (SAN), while admitting some of the plaintiff’s Statement of Claims, however urged the court to discountenance the plaintiff’s claims as they are not supported by the facts of this case or by the applicable laws.
Parts of the airline amended statement of defence reads: ” the made the following aveerments: “the Amended Statement of Claim, which says that the flight from Stuttgart to Paris was delayed from 7.00a.m to 3.00pm and states instead that following the cancellation of the Plaintiff’s flight KL 1870 which was scheduled to depart Stuttgart at 11a.m (and not 7.00a.m), the Defendant immediately arranged, with re-issued ticket and boarding passes to the Plaintiff, for the Plaintiff to be flown on its sister-airline, Air France’s flight AF 1509, being the earliest possible flight out of Stuttgart, to Paris, from where he would connect flight AF 1496 to Casablanca and then Royal Air Maroc flight AT 555 to Lagos. The said flight AF 1509 departed at 3.15pm resulting in a delay of 4 (four) hours, for which the Plaintiff was compensated with the sum of N252,131.00 being the Naira equivalent of 600 Euros in line with EU regulations.
“The Defendant denies the averment contained in paragraph 9 of the Amended Statement of Claim and in response states that the flight AF 1496, which was scheduled to convey the Plaintiff from Paris to Casablanca was also unfortunately delayed by the Air Traffic Controllers in Paris, a situation which was beyond the control of the Defendant and its sister-airline.
“The Defendant states in furtherance of the aveerment contained in paragraph 5 above that it did not fly the Plaintiff to Casablanca as a form of punishment, neither did it abandon him there, rather, it did everything possible within its control to get the Plaintiff to his destination and as soon as possible but for the delay of the Casablanca flight from Paris by the Air Traffic Controllers in Paris, which eventually prevented the Plaintiff from making his connecting flight from Casablanca to Lagos, on board Royal Air Maroc (AT5S5) as the flight had left before his arrival in Casablanca. That being the case, the Plaintiff was expected to approach Air France’s counter or the Royal Air Maroc’s counter in Casablanca for a rescheduling of his flight to Lagos but this, the Plaintiff never did.
“The Defendant denies the aveerment contained in paragraph 11 of the Amended Statement of Claim and states that transit visas are not required to approach Air France’s counter at the Casablanca Airport while transiting or making flight connections, provided the passenger is with a valid onward ticket. The Plaintiff, thus, being in possession of his re-issued onward ticket and boarding pass for his connecting flight to Lagos via Royal Air Maroc, ought to have approached either the counter of Air France or Royal Air Maroc for an alternative flight to Lagos without any additional cost.
“The Defendant denies the aveerments contained in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Amended Statement of Claim and reiterates the fact that the Plaintiff failed to approach the Air France’s counter to have his connecting flight rescheduled or be provided with an alternative flight which would have been done at no extra cost. The Defendant therefore denies responsibility for any additional cost incurred by the Plaintiff on account of any new flight ticket as that was solely his decision.
“The Defendant denies any willful misconduct on its part as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Amended Statement of Claim. The Defendant however admits receiving emails from the Plaintiff, to which it replied vide its response to the request dated 27 July 2018; vide email dated August 13, 2018 to the request dated 5 August 2018; vide email dated August 20, 2018 to the request dated 13 August 2018; and vide email dated August 29, 2018 to the request dated 20 August 2018, offering compensations in line with the EU regulations to the Plaintiff in the sum the N252,131.00 already paid per the attached EFT Payment advice dated 29.08.18 and additional 2 (two) 200Euros worth of travel vouchers numbered 0578256720803 and 0578260225974 respectively.
“The Defendant again denies any willful misconduct on its part as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Statement of Claim but admits receiving letters dated 21″ of May, 2019 and 24” of June, 2019 from one Afolasade Afolabi Esq.. to which the Defendant replied, with Reference number 13261498001 KL 1870/14JUL2018, through Ms. M Aguib of Customer Care, informing the said Afolasade Afolabi Esq. about the N252.131.00 compensation already paid to the Plaintiff for the delayed and eventually cancelled flight KL 1870 from Stuttgart to Amsterdam, as well as the additional 400 Euros worth of travel vouchers and the opportunity to explore a refund of his unused Casablanca to Lagos travel coupon through his travel agent which issued his original ticket.
“The Defendant vehemently denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 16-19 of the Amended Statement of Claim with emphasis on the allegations of breach of contract, willful misconduct, incompetence and negligence and as such not liable to the Plaintiff for any special or general damages inclusive of financial loss, loss of professional time, criminal imputation or adverse health condition allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff.”
