Arrow Creek Investments 75 (Pty) Ltd v V&A Waterfront Holdings (Pty) Ltd (AC9/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 134 (20 March 2025)

Arrow Creek Investments 75 (Pty) Ltd v V&A Waterfront Holdings (Pty) Ltd (AC9/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 134 (20 March 2025)

The applicant failed to establish a clear right to the urgent interim relief sought, including the return of the motor vessel to the original jetty and berth. There was no contractual or legal entitlement to restore the status quo ante, and the operational and safety requirements of the first respondent justified...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAWCHC 134
Parties
Applicant: Arrow Creek Investments 75 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: V&A Waterfront Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Xolile Aron Ngesi N.O. (The Sheriff of High Court, Cape Town East)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 March 2025
Case Number
AC9/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict and Related Urgent Relief
Outcome
Application for interim relief dismissed.
Judges
Wille
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Appointment of Sheriff, Berthing Rights, Release of Arrested Vessel, Environmental Indemnity
Admiralty and Maritime Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Appointment of Sheriff Berthing Rights Release of Arrested Vessel Environmental Indemnity

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arrow Creek Investments 75 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

V&A Waterfront Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Xolile Aron Ngesi N.O. (The Sheriff of High Court, Cape Town East)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict and Related Urgent Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent interim relief for the return and control of the motor vessel.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a clear right to demand the vessel's return to the original jetty and berth.
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to appoint or remove a sheriff or ad hoc sheriff in admiralty matters.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a clear right to the urgent interim relief sought, including the return of the motor vessel to the original jetty and berth. There was no contractual or legal entitlement to restore the status quo ante, and the operational and safety requirements of the first respondent justified the refusal. The court lacks jurisdiction to appoint or remove sheriffs except in exceptional circumstances, and the applicant did not exhaust statutory remedies or join necessary parties. The alleged urgency dissipated over time, and environmental concerns became moot. The service and upliftment of the arrest warrant were lawfully executed. The applicant did not make out a case...

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for interim relief is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondents, including costs occasioned by unnecessary delays.