Asahi and Another v Manzo and Others (A121/2012, A122/2012, A126/2012,A127/2012) [2014] ZAKZDHC 52 (15 October 2014)

Asahi and Another v Manzo and Others (A121/2012, A122/2012, A126/2012,A127/2012) [2014] ZAKZDHC 52 (15 October 2014)

The court held that the question of association between the mv Asahi and the other vessels could not be resolved on affidavit alone due to material disputes of fact regarding ownership and control. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for oral evidence, with directions for the parties to subpoena witnesses, compel discovery, and take evidence on commission as necessary. The court listed specific individuals to be available for examination and cross-examination, but allowed parties to apply for exclusion of any such witness for good cause. The costs of the application were reserved for determination after the oral evidence hearing.

Citation
[2014] ZAKZDHC 52
Parties
Applicant: M/V Asahi; Defendant: MV Saetta; Defendant: MV Belita; Defendant: MV Taisetsu; Respondent: Ramil Manzo & 6 Others; Respondent: Ernesto Ubas & 13 Others; Respondent: Glenmore Reynaldo; Respondent: Rodelio Cuevas & 17 Others
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 October 2014
Case Number
A121/2012, A122/2012, A126/2012, A127/2012
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Application / Final Order After Provisional Order and Representations
Outcome
Application adjourned for oral evidence; final order issued with procedural directions.
Judges
Rowan
Legal Topics
Associated Ship Liability, Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, Oral Evidence, Discovery Procedure
Admiralty and Maritime Civil Procedure Associated Ship Liability Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act Oral Evidence Discovery Procedure

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/V Asahi

Applicant

MV Saetta

Defendant

MV Belita

Defendant

MV Taisetsu

Defendant

Ramil Manzo & 6 Others

Respondent

Ernesto Ubas & 13 Others

Respondent

Glenmore Reynaldo

Respondent

Rodelio Cuevas & 17 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Application / Final Order After Provisional Order and Representations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mv Asahi was an associated ship with the mv Saetta, mv Taisetsu, and/or mv Belita at the relevant time under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act.
  2. 2 What procedures should govern the hearing of oral evidence and discovery in the determination of association.
  3. 3 Which individuals must be available for examination and cross-examination in the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the question of association between the mv Asahi and the other vessels could not be resolved on affidavit alone due to material disputes of fact regarding ownership and control. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for oral evidence, with directions for the parties to subpoena witnesses, compel discovery, and take evidence on commission as necessary. The court listed specific individuals to be available for examination and cross-examination, but allowed parties to apply for exclusion of any such witness for good cause. The costs of the application were reserved for determination after the oral evidence hearing.

Court Disposition

Application adjourned for oral evidence; final order issued with procedural directions.

Orders

  • The application is adjourned to a date to be arranged for the hearing of oral evidence on the question of association under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act.
  • Leave is granted to subpoena any person able to give evidence on the issues of association.