South Africa Case Law

MV 'TARIK III' Credit Europe Bank N.V. v The Fund Comprising the Proceeds of the Sale of the MV Tarik III and Others (1294/2021)

MV 'TARIK III' Credit Europe Bank N.V. v The Fund Comprising the Proceeds of the Sale of the MV Tarik III and Others (1294/2021) [2022] ZASCA 136; [2022] 4 All SA 621 (SCA) (13 October 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1294/2021

Judges

Ponnan, Zondi, Gorven, Makaula, Chetty

The majority held that the appellant, as a stranger to the charterparty, failed to establish that the bareboat charter agreement had terminated prior to the judicial sale of the vessel. The direct evidence from Garanti and Caliskan, supported by conduct and registry records, indicated the charterparty remained extant at all material times. The onus to prove termination rested on the appellant, who did not discharge it. The court further held that claimants need not have arrested the vessel prior to its sale to lodge claims against the Fund under the deeming provision. The procedure for provin…

Source excerpt

• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Onus Of Proof
• Judicial Sale Of Vessel
• Distribution Of Fund
• Action In Rem
• Bareboat Charter

Van Niekerk v MV "Madiba 1" (AC13/2018)

Van Niekerk v MV "Madiba 1" (AC13/2018) [2022] ZAWCHC 152 (15 August 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC13/2018

Judge

Binns-Ward

The High Court refused the vessel owner leave to appeal, holding that section 1(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act is jurisdictional and does not transfer ownership.

• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Action In Rem
• Demise Charterer Liability
• Leave To Appeal
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Admiralty-jurisdiction

Van Niekerk v The MV "Madiba 1" (AC13/2018)

Van Niekerk v The MV "Madiba 1" (AC13/2018) [2022] ZAWCHC 125 (17 June 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC13/2018

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court held that section 1(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act was enacted to allow vessels chartered by demise to be arrested in actions in rem for maritime claims against the charterer, but does not transfer ownership or proprietary rights to the charterer. The arrest of the vessel attaches the property of the real owner, not the charterer, and does not constitute an attachment or execution against the charterer's assets under section 359(1)(b) of the Companies Act. The charterer's rights under the charterparty are personal and not attached by the arrest. The proposed special…

Source excerpt

• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Demise Charter
• Action In Rem
• Companies Act Liquidation
• Attachment And Execution
• Statutory Interpretation

Windrush Intercontinental SA and Another v UACC Bergshav Tankers AS (556/2015)

Windrush Intercontinental SA and Another v UACC Bergshav Tankers AS (556/2015) [2016] ZASCA 199; 2017 (3) SA 1 (SCA) (6 December 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

556/2015

Judges

Maya, Shongwe, Wallis, Dambuza, Makgoka

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that no maritime lien for crew wages existed after pirates held seafarers hostage, so the vessel’s deemed arrest was set aside.

• Maritime Lien
• Crew Wages
• Frustration Of Contract
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Bareboat Charter
• Action In Rem

MV 'PrivGulf' v ING Bank N.V and Others (A72/2015)

MV 'PrivGulf' v ING Bank N.V and Others (A72/2015) [2016] ZAKZDHC 23 (20 July 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A72/2015

Judge

Koen

The court refused Sinopec’s joinder in an admiralty in rem action, but confirmed joinder of Great American Insurance Company because of competing payment claims.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Maritime Claims
• Action In Rem
• Assignment Of Claims
• Conversion
• Competing Jurisdictions

CH Offshore Ltd v PDV Marina SA and Others (A113/2013)

CH Offshore Ltd v PDV Marina SA and Others (A113/2013) [2013] ZAKZDHC 62 (5 November 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A113/2013

Judge

Ploos van Amstel

The court held that the possessory rights of PDV Marina SA in the MT Rio Caroni, arising from a bareboat charter-party, are not real rights located within the jurisdiction of the South African court and cannot be arrested as security for the applicant's claim. The rights under the charter-party are contractual and their situs is where the shipowner resides, not where the vessel is physically present. The court found that mere possession does not constitute a real right or an asset in the estate of the charterer, and the arrest of such rights does not serve the legitimate purpose of providing…

Source excerpt

• Security Arrest
• Bareboat Charter
• Possessory Rights
• Jurisdiction
• Hire Purchase
• Action In Rem

Kalahari Mining Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Others v Wilest International Pvt Co. Ltd (A18/2013)

Kalahari Mining Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Others v Wilest International Pvt Co. Ltd (A18/2013) [2013] ZAKZDHC 29; 2013 (5) SA 12 (KZD) (30 May 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A18/2013

Judge

SR Mullins

The court set aside the deemed arrest of iron ore cargo, holding that a vindicatory action in rem is not available for cargo under South African admiralty law.

• Action In Rem
• Vindicatory Claim
• Ownership Of Cargo
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Security Arrest
• Parate Executie

Transnet Ltd v The Owner of the Alina II (898/10)

Transnet Ltd v The Owner of the Alina II (898/10) [2011] ZASCA 129; 2011 (6) SA 206 (SCA); [2011] 4 All SA 350 (SCA) (15 September 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

898/10

Judges

Brand, Ponnan, Malan, Theron, Wallis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the vessel owner had already submitted to jurisdiction by defending the in rem action, so attachment was unnecessary.

• Attachment Ad Fundandam Et Confirmandam Jurisdictionem
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Action In Rem
• Action In Personam
• Abuse Of Process
• Admiralty-law

Transnet Ltd v The Owner of the MV Alina II and Another (AC40/10)

Transnet Ltd v The Owner of the MV Alina II and Another (AC40/10) [2010] ZAWCHC 503; 2011 (6) SA 40 (WCC) (20 October 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC40/10

Judge

Griesel

The court held that the applicant's contemplated action in personam was based on the same facts and causes of action as the pending actions in rem, and that the effective defendant in each was the owner of the vessel. Allowing concurrent proceedings in rem and in personam for the same claim would result in unnecessary multiplicity of actions and constitute an abuse of process. Section 3(8) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act prohibits multiple arrests or attachments for the same maritime claim by the same claimant. Furthermore, the respondent had already submitted to the jurisdiction…

Source excerpt

• Attachment Ad Confirmandam Jurisdictionem
• Action In Rem
• Action In Personam
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Abuse Of Process

MT 'Fotiy Krylov' v Owners of the MT “Ruby Deliverer” (AC181/2006)

MT 'Fotiy Krylov' v Owners of the MT “Ruby Deliverer” (AC181/2006) [2008] ZAWCHC 104 (30 April 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC181/2006

Judge

Davis

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect that the Supreme Court of Appeal would interpret the relevant English law on maritime liens differently. The Court found that the statutory time bar does not apply to maritime lien claims asserted in rem, but where a contractual provision excludes the owner's liability, no damage lien accrues if the charterers are treated as owners. The Court also held that Tsvaliris, as a subcontractor, was entitled to the protection of the Himalaya clause under the Towcon agreement, as the con…

Source excerpt

• Maritime Lien
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Contractual Exclusion Of Liability
• Himalaya Clause
• Action In Rem
• Charter Party Liability