A Nigerian engineer, Yekeen Idowu, has sued KLM Royal Dutch Airways, earlier than the Federal Excessive Court docket in Lagos over alleged negligence and lack of properties.
The case with swimsuit quantity FHC/L/CS/607/2020 has been mounted for April 1, 2025 earlier than Justice Musa Kakaki.
The plaintiff, had dragged the Dutch airline earlier than the court docket in a swimsuit marked
On the resumed listening to of the swimsuit on Thursday, Barrister Enitan Afolabi introduced his look for the plaintiff, whereas Barrister Fidelis OKeke main Cynthia Adepoju introduced their look for KLM Royal Dutch Airways.
Additionally, Kitoye Pamela Akinwale introduced her look for the defendant.
KLM’s counsel advised the court docket that the enterprise of the day was for listening to of defendant’s defence to the swimsuit.
Nonetheless, counsel to the Plaintiff whereas apologizing to the court docket for lacking the proceedings on two events, vehemently objected to the Counsel’s argument stating that the matter ought to begin denovo because it was partly heard by Justice Abimbola Awogboro, who has been transferred to a different jurisdiction of the court docket.
The plaintiff’s lawyer subsequently, requested the court docket for a brand new date for the graduation of the matter.
Justice Kakaki after listening to the events’ submissions, held that the matter should start denovo, he thereafter adjourned that matter to April 1, for listening to.
The plaintiff, Engineer Idowu, in his amended assertion of claims filed by his lawyer, Enitan Afolabi, has requested the court docket for the sum of 700 Euro, N1.2 million and N45 million Naira solely from the airline, being common and particular damages.
In urging the court docket to grant his request, the Engineer acknowledged that on or about July 3, 2018, he launched into a visit to Frankfurt, Germany on board of KLM Royal Dutch Airways for beneficial consideration and was scheduled to return to Lagos, Nigeria from Stuttgart, Germany on July 14, 2018 by way of a Reservation Code, MOHSKI and Airline Reservation Code V4P8K4(KL) stating his itinerary.
He additional avers that opposite 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 three.00pm for which the airline paid compensation of 600 Euro to him.
He acknowledged that he was belatedly placed on Air France flight with promise to drop him in Lagos, Nigeria en-route Casablanca, Morocco. Nonetheless, he was punishingly flown from Paris, France to Casablanca, Morocco and dropped there the place he was left stranded and dangerously to his destiny for over 24 hours, which when added to the delay the re-route occasioned on the Plaintiff involves 48 hours. The 48 hours actually regarded like a few weeks. And that he was left to frustration, isolation and deep despair throughout this era.
He acknowledged that in this era, he couldn’t entry his household in Nigeria, his enterprise associates, he couldn’t meet his enterprise appointments with a few of the aforementioned corporations and left incommunicado with the surface world.
And that having been deserted in Casablanca, Morocco by the defendant he unsuccessfully tried to contact the defendant and/or Air France workplace on the airport however was prevented from accessing the workplace at some extent the place he was required to have a sound transit visa so as to take action.
He acknowledged additional that the airline willingly refused, willingly failed to return to the horrible place that they had put him.
He was harassed by Morocco immigration authorities and barely escaped prosecution and imprisonment. All his efforts to discover a answer to his travails met with a stone wall and was left dejected, depressing and on the mercy of the unknown.
The Engineer additional acknowledged the next: “that after frantically in search of for answer to his travails and couldn’t get one because the Defendant made himself unavoidably irresponsible he was compelled to take his future in his arms as he struggled to ebook one other flight vide Air Morocco to Lagos, Nigeria which value him 700Euro (Seven Hundred Euro). As soon as contained in the plane flying him to Nigeria he noticed co-passengers avoiding me like plague and a few of them masking their noses.
“That on attending to Lagos, Nigeria, he wrote to the Defendant vide the Defendant’s on-line platform on twenty seventh July, 2018, fifth August, 2018, thirteenth August, 2018 and twentieth August, 2018 complaining of the willful misconduct of the Defendant and though the Defendant responded to the plaintiff’s protest on the net platform by his emaii specifically: Declare No 12000078001KL1870/14 Jul 2018, Declare No 12047594 001KL1870/14 Jul 2018, Declare No 1208922 6001AF1496/14 Jul 2018 and Declare No 12126736001AF 1496/14 July 2018, they refused, failed and/or uncared for to deal with his grievances and additional refused, failed and/or uncared for to proffer answer and/or ample compensation.
The compensation provided by the defendant fell far wanting 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 angle to his travails, he had no different than to seek the advice of and retain the providers of Afolasade Afolabi, Esq of Enitan Afolabi & Co who wrote the Defendant vide letters dated twenty first Might, 2019 and twenty fourth June, 2019 and the defendant though replied the aforementioned letters endured in his willful misconduct to fulfill the demand of the Plaintiff.
The e-mail underneath which the Defendant reacted to the Plaintiff solicitor’s letter is the e-mail with reference no 13261498001KL1870/14 Jul 2018 and is hereby pleaded.
“The Plaintiff suffered particular and common damages in consequence of Defendant’s breach of contract and willful misconduct. And that by the point he consulted his solicitors and an motion was imminent he was unable to seek out the flight ticket he used from Casablanca to Lagos, Nigeria and all efforts to seek out it proved futile however continues to seek for it till lately when he gave up the seek for it because it was irretrievably misplaced.
“By motive of the Defendant’s incompetence, deliberate act, act of negligence and willful misconduct the Plaintiff has been put to plenty of {financial} losses, journey stresses, lack of skilled time, felony imputation and so on. and his well being has been significantly and adversely affected.”
However the airline, KLM Royal Dutch, in its amended assertion of defence filed by its lawyer, S. E. Elema (SAN), whereas admitting a few of the plaintiff’s Assertion of Claims, nevertheless urged the court docket to discountenance the plaintiff’s claims as they aren’t supported by the information of this case or by the relevant legal guidelines.
Elements of the airline amended assertion of defence reads: “….the Amended Assertion of Declare, which says that the flight from Stuttgart to Paris was delayed from 7.00a.m to three.00pm and states as a substitute that following the cancellation of the Plaintiff’s flight KL 1870 which was scheduled to depart Stuttgart at 11a.m (and never 7.00a.m), the Defendant instantly organized, 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 attainable flight out of Stuttgart, to Paris, from the place he would join flight AF 1496 to Casablanca after which Royal Air Maroc flight AT 555 to Lagos. The mentioned flight AF 1509 departed at 3.15pm leading to a delay of 4 (4) hours, for which the Plaintiff was compensated with the sum of N252,131.00 being the Naira equal of 600 Euros according to EU laws.
“The Defendant denies the averment contained in paragraph 9 of the Amended Assertion of Declare and in response states that the flight AF 1496, which was scheduled to convey the Plaintiff from Paris to Casablanca was additionally sadly delayed by the Air Visitors Controllers in Paris, a state of affairs which was past the management of the Defendant and its sister-airline.
“The Defendant states in furtherance of the aveerment contained in paragraph 5 above that it didn’t fly the Plaintiff to Casablanca as a type of punishment, neither did it abandon him there, somewhat, it did the whole lot attainable inside its management to get the Plaintiff to his vacation spot and as quickly as attainable however for the delay of the Casablanca flight from Paris by the Air Visitors Controllers in Paris, which finally prevented the Plaintiff from making his connecting flight from Casablanca to Lagos, on board Royal Air Maroc (AT5S5) because the flight had left earlier than his arrival in Casablanca. That being the case, the Plaintiff was anticipated to method Air France’s counter or the Royal Air Maroc’s counter in Casablanca for a rescheduling of his flight to Lagos however this, the Plaintiff by no means did.
“The Defendant denies the aveerment contained in paragraph 11 of the Amended Assertion of Declare and states that transit visas aren’t required to method Air France’s counter on the Casablanca Airport whereas transiting or making flight connections, supplied the passenger is with a sound onward ticket. The Plaintiff, thus, being in possession of his re-issued onward ticket and boarding cross for his connecting flight to Lagos by way of Royal Air Maroc, must have approached both the counter of Air France or Royal Air Maroc for another flight to Lagos with none extra value.
“The Defendant denies the aveerments contained in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Amended Assertion of Declare and reiterates the truth that the Plaintiff didn’t method the Air France’s counter to have his connecting flight rescheduled or be supplied with another flight which might have been carried out at no additional value. The Defendant subsequently denies accountability for any extra value incurred by the Plaintiff on account of any new flight ticket as that was solely his resolution.
“The Defendant denies any willful misconduct on its half as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Amended Assertion of Declare. The Defendant nevertheless admits receiving emails from the Plaintiff, to which it replied vide its response to the request dated 27 July 2018; vide e mail dated August 13, 2018 to the request dated 5 August 2018; vide e mail dated August 20, 2018 to the request dated 13 August 2018; and vide e mail dated August 29, 2018 to the request dated 20 August 2018, providing compensations according to the EU laws to the Plaintiff within the sum the N252,131.00 already paid per the connected EFT Fee recommendation dated 29.08.18 and extra 2 (two) 200Euros price of journey vouchers numbered 0578256720803 and 0578260225974 respectively.
“The Defendant once more denies any willful misconduct on its half as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Amended Assertion of Declare however admits receiving letters dated 21″ of Might, 2019 and 24” of June, 2019 from one Afolasade Afolabi Esq.. to which the Defendant replied, with Reference quantity 13261498001 KL 1870/14JUL2018, via Ms. M Aguib of Buyer Care, informing the mentioned Afolasade Afolabi Esq. in regards to the N252.131.00 compensation already paid to the Plaintiff for the delayed and finally cancelled flight KL 1870 from Stuttgart to Amsterdam, in addition to the extra 400 Euros price of journey vouchers and the chance to discover a refund of his unused Casablanca to Lagos journey coupon via his journey agent which issued his unique ticket.
“The Defendant vehemently denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 16-19 of the Amended Assertion of Declare with emphasis on the allegations of breach of contract, willful misconduct, incompetence and negligence and as such not liable to the Plaintiff for any particular or common damages inclusive {of financial} loss, lack of skilled time, felony imputation or hostile well being situation allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff.”