"The main ground for disagreement is whether the limitation of liability on the Appellant's part to $1,000.00 (One Thousand Dollars only) as provided in Articles 22(2) of the Montreal Convention apply to the circumstances of this appeal. The first port of call in the resolution of this issue is to state that it is clear from the evidence on record that the Appellant is liable to the Respondents for the loss of their personal belongings in the two large bags wrongly routed to Abuja. This is in line with the straightforward provision of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, that is: The air carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of destruction or loss of, or damage to checked baggage if the event that caused the destruction, or loss or damage, took place on board the aircraft or during any period within which the checked baggage was in the charge of the carrier. Article 22(2) of the Convention indeed limits the liability of the Airline. This is the simple meaning of its provisions, which are herein reproduced thus: "In the carriage of baggage, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is limited to 1,000 Special Drawing Rights for each passenger unless the passenger has made, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passenger's actual interest in delivery at destination."? The learned trial Judge was well aware of correct principles of law with regards to the circumstances of the case before him and did take due note of them. He however did not apply the limitation of liability reflected above on the grounds that the actions of the Appellant falls within the parameters of situations where the limitation would not apply. It is indeed correct to state that where the loss of baggage (not cargo) was occasioned by the negligence or wilful misconduct, the liability principle above will not apply. The foregoing is a correct interpretation of the clear provisions of Article 22(5) of the Convention, which provides thus: The foregoing provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result; provided that, in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent, it is also proved that such servant or agent was acting within the scope of its employment. The decision of this Court in the case of EMIRATE AIRLINE v. AFORKA & ANOR(2014) LPELR-22686(CA),is clearly to the effect that the above stated provision applies to claims for baggage.? It is settled beyond any form of controversy that in interpreting a Statute or written agreement, the Court ought not consider specific segments in isolation, but look at them in relation with other provisions of the Statute or agreement as a whole. The combined effect therefore of Article 22(2) and (5) of the Montreal Convention is that the limitation of the Carrier's liability will not apply to cases of negligence where the subject matter of the claim is baggage. The rules as to cargo are different." In AERO CONTRACTORS COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED v. MR. KINGSLEY OGUINE & ORS Suit No; CA/L/313/2014 Per TUKUR, J.C.A. (Pp. 8-11, Paras. C-B)